The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly: Unparliamentary Language

Mr Speaker: On Monday 13 November I cautioned a Member — Mr Wells — because of a remark he had made. He referred to
"two Departments with terrorists in Government." [Official Report, Vol. 7, No 3, p129].
Having studied the Member’s comment and my response to it, I am satisfied that it is not one that I can allow to remain. I therefore call on Mr Wells to withdraw it.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What is it that you are ruling to be unparliamentary? Is it the use of the word "terrorists" per se, or is it the use of the word "terrorists" to describe specific individuals?

Mr Speaker: As I said at the time, it was quite clear that accusations were being made about two particular Members. When I drew the Assembly’s attention to my view about that accusation against the two Members, there was no dissent. The Member simply went on to make reference to one of the Members. It is the question of the legitimacy of the remarks that were made with reference to two Members that concerns me, and it is those remarks that I ask the Member to withdraw. Will the Member please respond?

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is what concerned me about the original ruling. I urge you to look at the remarks before asking the Member to withdraw them. Are you questioning their accuracy? It would be strange for a Speaker to adopt the position of judging the truthfulness of any remark that is made in the Assembly. That would be a full-time occupation indeed. If the word "terrorist" cannot be used, the Assembly should be told that it is unparliamentary in itself and not just because it refers to a particular individual.

Mr Speaker: In other places accusations against Members that have legal connotations but are made on no legal basis are judged not to be parliamentary. I call on Mr Wells to withdraw the comment.

Mr Jim Wells: The ordinary, decent people of the Province make no distinction whatsoever between Sinn Féin and the IRA. They are one and the same, two sides of the one —

Mr Speaker: Order. This is not an opportunity to make a statement. I have explained the situation and have asked the Member to withdraw the comment.

Mr Jim Wells: Mr Speaker, I refer you to the Hansard record. When you pulled me up on that matter I made it clear that I was referring to the Minister of Education, who is on record as having at least two convictions for terrorism —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member and his Colleagues know well that when they are asked to withdraw remarks, they are not being given an opportunity to make a speech. I have drawn attention to the comment
"We still have two Departments with terrorists in Government."
At the time I drew attention to its clear implication. I have said that it is not acceptable and I call on the Member to withdraw it — [Interruption].
Order. The Member knows what the consequences will be if he is not prepared to withdraw.

Mr Jim Wells: As Hansard, at page 129, records, I said
"it is a matter of record that the Minister of Education is a convicted terrorist. I am not saying anything that has not been on the front page of every newspaper in the country."
It is a matter of record, a matter of fact. I have clarified it and I have no intention of withdrawing my statement that the Minister of Education is a terrorist.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member knows perfectly well what the question is. The Minister of Education is without doubt a powerful individual, but he does not have control of a second Department — [Interruption].
Order. As the Member will not withdraw his statement, he must withdraw from the Chamber and the precincts of the Assembly for the rest of this day.
The Member withdrew from the Chamber.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you saying that you will make a ruling on the accuracy of any accusations made against Members in the House? You have ruled that it would be all right if the Member had referred only to the Minister of Education as a terrorist, because everybody knows that he is a terrorist and has been convicted of being a terrorist. Are you also ruling that because there is no conviction against the other Minister, it was incorrect to make such remarks? Is that the basis of your judgement?

Mr Speaker: It would be improper for me to permit Members to make wild statements without legal accuracy, to accuse other Members of criminal activities when there is no —

Mr Nigel Dodds: Like corruption?

Mr Speaker: Corruption, of course —

Mr Nigel Dodds: We have said "corruption of democracy" before.

Mr Speaker: The phrase "corruption of democracy" is a different matter — [Interruption].
Order. Corruption of the procedures of this Chamber is not acceptable. If Members are not prepared to accept the rulings, they will be removed or they can put down a motion and I will quite happily sit through another debate, as I sat through the last one.
We will now proceed with the proper and appropriate business of the Assembly.

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the debate on Monday 13 November you drew Mr Wells’s attention to his comments in relation to two Departments. Mr Wells went on to say
"Mr Speaker, it is a matter of record that the Minister of Education is a convicted terrorist."

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Nigel Dodds: You are not prepared to deal with the issue in a fair and impartial way.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will resume his seat. He knows perfectly well that he is about to question a ruling of the Chair.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Yes.

Mr Speaker: The Member knows that it is out of order to question a ruling of the Chair. If he wishes to put down a proper motion, which would be in order, he is at liberty to do so.
We will now proceed with the proper business.

Assembly: Conflicting Ministerial Replies

Mr Eamonn ONeill: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 2 October 2000 I raised with you my concerns about how I, as a public representative, could proceed with regard to conflicting information I was receiving from two Ministers. Subsequently, the issue was made clear by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development as a result of questions from Mr Ian Paisley Jnr and myself. The Department advised that there was no consultation. Under Standing Order 1(2), you are supposed to rule on the matter. Why is it taking so long to get a ruling?

Mr Speaker: The answer is twofold. First, it took some time to receive responses from the relevant Departments. Secondly, it would not be proper to give a ruling when the relevant Ministers are not present. To date, it has not been possible to have both Ministers present, but I trust that it will soon be possible to address the matter, because a response has been forthcoming in the terms which I advised at the time would be likely to apply.

Food Standards: Enniskillen Meeting (Cost)

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I drew the attention of the Speaker’s Office to the fact that I would be making a point of order on this matter.

Mr Speaker: I trust that it is a point of order.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: It is a point of order.
On 6 November the Minister of Health gave an undertaking to the House that she would write to a Member about the officials who accompanied her to Enniskillen on behalf of her Department and give the costs of that meeting. That was 14 days ago. When can we expect answers from the Minister of Health on these crucial matters?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member knows that this is not a point of order. It may be a point of concern to him, but there is no Standing Order that relates to the matter.

Assembly: Languages

Mr Edwin Poots: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Several weeks ago I raised the question of statements being made in the House in Irish which were not fully translated into English. You were to give a ruling on the matter. We received a rather inadequate excuse from the Minister involved, but we did not receive a ruling from you.

Mr Speaker: The Minister responded and explained what had happened. At the time I made it clear that I regarded the Minister’s response as adequate. She apologised to the House because there had been an error. All statements and responses — [Interruption].
Order. It is out of order for mobile telephones to ring in the Chamber.
The position is clear. When responses are made in a language other than English, a full and accurate translation must be given. On a number of occasions I have checked the matter. For Members who wish to have a simultaneous translation, a report showing the costs and other details has been available for over 18 months. It is simply a matter of a proposal to be taken forward by the Business Committee.
My ruling is clear: any statements made in a language other than English must be translated fully and accurately. On that occasion the statement was not translated fully and accurately, but the Minister fully and promptly apologised.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I am not taking any further points of order at this stage. We are simply delaying business, and many of these points are not points of order. If there are any further points of order I will take them later.

Public Expenditure (2000-01): October Monitoring

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the October monitoring round.

Mr Mark Durkan: At its meeting on Thursday 16 November the Executive Committee agreed some reallocations of spending for the financial year 2000-01. I stress at the outset that this concerns the monitoring of expenditure in the current year and not the Budget for 2001-02, which we discussed last week. There is a very important distinction between these processes.
As the year progresses, changes in the estimated requirements for public services become the dominant factor in the planning of spending. Allocations can change for a variety of reasons, and the scope for strategic decision -making is not as great as at planning stage. That underlines the importance of taking planning decisions well in advance, so that resources can be used in the best possible way.
The monitoring round addresses, first, the estimating changes and other sources of spending power which can be reallocated — the room to manoeuvre. Secondly, it addresses revised estimates of requirements from Departments and proposals for additional discretionary expenditure. The key issue is to ensure that resources continue to be used in the best possible way in the light of new information on requirements, which can lead to substantial changes — both up and down — as the year progresses.
In this round, significant savings have emerged for reallocation. The total amount available for reallocation is £75·3 million. That comprises several key elements, the largest of which is £40 millionidentified as savings by Departments. The largest single item is £20 million of additional house sale receipts from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. There are other significant elements, including some slippage on capital projects and other additional income over and above the levels projected at the time of the previous monitoring round in June/July. These include £9·6 million of additional ship- building receipts. The total available is significantly larger than has been the case in previous years, and we should not expect to have such large amounts to reallocate in every monitoring round.
The Executive had held £7·7 million unallocated since the June/July monitoring round to cover the second tranche of the Agenda for Government. The agenda gave a foretaste of the ways in which new practices of working together could be achieved under devolution. Our proposals on the October monitoring round show how this can be continued in the context of the Programme for Government, which takes that work to a much higher level and on to a more extensive scale.
Also available for allocation is £5·8 million that we have received through the Barnett formula as a consequence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s most recent allocation for education in England in this financial year.
Members have copies of the table showing the additional allocations that the Executive have agreed. In many cases these are to cover changes in the estimated requirements for particular services, and this should be borne in mind when considering all the proposals, especially the distribution of resources between services. This exercise has to be guided mainly by pragmatism and practicability, because we cannot do all that we might wish at this stage of the year. There are just over four months to go until the end of the financial year.
Recognising the limitations on additional spending at this stage of the year, the Executive have decided to plan on the basis that some of the spending power available in this monitoring round should be carried forward into 2001-02. This is possible under the end-year flexibility arrangements, subject to formal approval by the Treasury. It will permit a more effective use of resources and more careful consideration of their allocation.
In this way we propose to allocate £5 million to the Health Service’s capital programme to secure additional spending in 2001-02. It was not possible to provide for this area as much as we would have liked to when we were allocating budgetary funds in mid-October. At that time we were also concerned that we had not channelled sufficient resources for the first year of the Executive programme funds. Given the large amount of money now available, we propose to add £9 million to the funds, through carry-over into 2001-02, leaving a total of £25 million.
As we promised, further details on the design and management of these funds will be revealed as soon as possible. It is the Executive’s intention that decisions on the first round of allocations should be made early in the new year. This will ensure that well-planned and well- targeted spending can be achieved to enable us to make the best possible use of this important new resource. Moving this money to the Executive programme funds will help to ensure that it is targeted in the best possible way, and in accordance with the priorities of the Programme for Government.
The remaining £61 million is being allocated to meet a range of additional requirements which have arisen across all the Departments. These allocations include £10·6 million to further the initiatives launched in June in the Agenda for Government. With substantial resources available, the Executive have decided to add some £2·9 million to the £7·7 million that has been set aside for this purpose. The additional allocations agreed by the Executive include £6·7 million for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, mainly to cover revised estimates of the costs arising from animal health issues, which have continued to increase beyond what was estimated in June.
There is £1·2 million for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, including £700,000 for public libraries. The Executive remain determined to ensure that appropriate resources are available to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for key policy objectives. There is an additional allocation to ensure that the information age initiative receives maximum resources for the remainder of this financial year. In addition, there will still be scope for the Executive to agree, later in the year, to devote additional resources to any new costs that may emerge from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
The Department of Education will receive an extra £10 million, including the £5·6million Barnett formula allocation made consequent upon the Chancellor’s schools’ money from the pre-Budget report. This will help to address the physical condition of schools, and the Minister of Education will indicate how the funding is to be distributed in due course. There is an allocation of £8·4 million for the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, including £4 million to cover a revised estimate of the cost of student support and £3 million for redundancy payments in connection with Harland & Wolff.
A total allocation of £17 million is to be made in this financial year to the Health Service, including £4 million for capital expenditure and allowances to meet a range of other cost pressures which affect the Health Service at this time. In covering additional costs, such as the effect of high oil prices on hospitals, the Health Service will be better placed to cope with the demands that it will face over the winter period. The Executive believe that this is an important boost for the Health Service which will be used effectively to achieve a better response to the needs of the region in the coming months.
There is a £5 million allocation to the Department for Regional Development, mainly designed to cover a range of additional running costs for the Roads Service and the Water Service, which have emerged as the year has progressed.
There is also £10·5million for the Department for Social Development. This includes provision for disability adaptations and some housing costs, including those resulting from the disturbances in the Shankill area.
The final allocations are of small amounts for my Department — to facilitate work on the EU structural funds — and for the Office of the First Ministerand the Deputy FirstMinister. The sum of £200,000 has been allocated for some important work to meet the needs of victims.
All these reallocations will be subject to approval by the Assembly, as Supplementary Estimates, in due course. There will be a further monitoring round in December and that will provide an opportunity for some further easements and reallocation. I propose to merge the revisions agreed at that date with those available now and to draft one revised Appropriation Bill in the new year. Time will be short for the approval of that Bill, but I hope that by then we will have agreed a revision of Standing Orders to facilitate the timely passage of financial legislation. In the meantime there is some time for the Finance and Personnel Committee and the other statutory Committees to scrutinise the reallocations which I have announced today before they become Supplementary Estimates and proposals for the Appropriation Bill to which I have already referred.
This is an important range of reallocations. I must stress again that they are driven mainly by the pragmatic redistribution of resources in response to changing patterns of spending across public services. It is unusual for the amounts to be as large as they are on this occasion. I hope Members will agree that there is benefit to be gained from planning to carry over some of the resources into 2001-02. If we use this measure to boost the Executive programme funds in particular, that will in turn boost the effectiveness of our efforts to introduce and develop our priorities. There is potential here for continued benefit from devolution and for applying resources to our needs. Again this is a manifestation of the constructive and positive impact of members of the Executive working together.
I commend these proposals to the Assembly in the belief that they represent a good use of the resources which have now become available to us.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is certainly good that further resources are available to the Committees and to the Assembly for reallocation in this way.
Does the Minister have a programme for working with the Committee on the revised draft Appropriation Bill? Given the short time available, this would allow us to scrutinise and discuss the new legislation as quickly as possible. Will the new allocation of money, and the new-found money, allow for the possibility of reducing the 8% rate rise envisaged in last week’s statement?

Mr Mark Durkan: MrMolloy has raised several points. I recognise the importance of the Finance and Personnel Committee’s role. It is particularly important that it has plenty of time and sensible procedures to enable it to discharge its role. I appreciate the fact that the various constraints which affect our Department and the Executive at large also affect the work of that Committee. We have already spoken with the Committee with a view to trying to improve procedures and agree proposals, and we intend to continue working on that joint basis.
I am glad that the Chairperson of the Committee welcomes the resources that we have available. Obviously the Committee and he will want to take time to consider more fully how well those resources are being allocated. When we have money available for allocation, we want to make sure it is put to best use. That is why we are carrying some money over into next year.
As for the rates question, I indicated previously that if figures became available on time, there is sufficient buoyancy in the rates to allow us to plan a lower regional rate increase while still retaining the projected level of expenditure that is needed and budgeted for. The Executive still propose to spend an amount of money next year that will require an increase in the regional rate.

Mr James Leslie: I thank the Minister for his statement on the outcome of the monitoring round. However, I am concerned that the Minister may be lapsing into a practice that is prevalent across the water — that of double-counting money. I note that £7·7 million of the £75 million was available in the June monitoring round. It seems to me that the new net amount is rather in the order of £67·6 million. Can the Minister clarify this?
Does he propose to keep the Agenda for Government separate from the Executive programme funds? It looks to me as if one may slide into the other seamlessly.
In paragraph 13, which concerns the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, no sums of money are mentioned. Acts of genius are, of course, expected from the Ulster Unionist Ministers, but I am amazed that the Department’s amount of new age technology is so great that seven lines were devoted to it but costs were not mentioned. Can the Minister enlighten us?

Mr Mark Durkan: As my statement made clear, the Executive held over some £7·7 million in the June/July monitoring round for a second tranche for the Agenda for Government. We clearly identified the fact that this sum of money would be available for the October monitoring round to give us room to manoeuvre, and the Executive have decided to use the money. As the figures show, the expenditure on the Agenda for Government will exceed £7·7 million.
The Agenda for Government has been exceeded, broadened and elevated by the Programme for Government. Further work will follow to give details of the Programme for Government through to the public service agreements. We will continue to work on elaborating the precise design and management of the Executive programme funds to ensure that they best serve the priorities in the Programme for Government. We do not intend to continue with Agenda for Government items because we now have the Programme for Government itself.
I indicated in my statement, and I apologise if this is not reflected properly in the tables, that some money will be available to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for its information age initiative. The Executive will try to provide further moneys later in the year, should that be necessary for key projects. I also acknowledge the contribution from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on manoeuvrability.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Minister’s statement. The public will be pleased to hear that £75million is to be reallocated after the October monitoring round.
Can the Minister tell us when the Durkan funds will be available, in particular the fund for social inclusion and community regeneration, and when they will start to have an effect on the ground? Many groups in the community development sectors are waiting to hear when the programme funds can be used.

Mr Mark Durkan: I do not think that funds should be named after an individual, any more than I think that taxes should be named after an individual. These are the Executive programme funds, and the Executive are trying to add to their value in the first year. Many people have asked if there is enough money for the first year, given the significant increases that we want in years two and three.
Mr Byrne referred to the fund for social inclusion and community regeneration, which, no less than other funds, will be subject to further Executive consideration. That will ensure the best working system to enable the fund to serve its proper purposes — not just for the Government and all the Departments, who have a real contribution to make to the success of that fund, but for a range of community and social interests as well.

Mr Edwin Poots: The £1·5 million spent on the Shankill Road and the further £200,000 from the Department of Health to rehouse people in that area show the poison of paramilitaries in our society. They need to stand down. Good use could have been made of that money and social housing provided for people who need it. The victims originally asked for £500,000, and the £200,000 coming now is too little, too late.
The £1 million for historic buildings should be given a broad welcome because that will bring in extra money from the National Lottery, through the lottery heritage fund. There is also £700,000 of additional funding for libraries. Will that help to get the long-awaited library for Lisburn under way? There was also an opportunity to do more for the Roads Service. Given what we have heard in the last week about our roads, we are missing an opportunity to do more for them.

Mr Mark Durkan: I welcome Mr Poots’s welcome of some of the items, particularly the historic buildings grant. The Environment Committee has been pursuing that matter. In particular, the Minister of the Environment, Sam Foster, has made the point that more lottery money could be made available. For that reason we are trying to improve provision there.
There is also significant provision for libraries for the remainder of the year. The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, Michael McGimpsey, will indicate precisely how that money will be spent, and there has to be balance in that.
I appreciate that many different programmes feel that they could have got more and should have done better out of this round. I also recognise that because moneys were made available to Departments that incurred costs arising from the Shankill Road situation, the opportunity to meet some of the allocations that other Departments were seeking has been constrained. I hope that all Members encourage an improvement in the situation on the Shankill, not only for the good of the community there but so that the rest of us do not have to suffer some of the consequential costs — and lost opportunity is one of them — that those problems have caused.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat. Like other Members, I welcome the Minister’s statement. I would like to make one point and ask one question. There are allocations for non-industrial pay, industrial pay and salaries among other things. There is even £3 million towards redundancy payments in the shipyard. We also have allocations for gap funding for many of the European Union-supported projects with which there have been controversy and difficulties that affect a number of working-class areas right across the North. Can the Minister assure Members that some priority will be given to increased moneys for European Union gap funding, given the high level of unemployment that will otherwise be created in many constituencies?

Mr Mark Durkan: In the reallocations, £3·6million is being allocated for gap funding. First, £0·5million is being allocated through the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety especially for childcare related projects. Secondly, £1·1million is being allocated through the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to carry over projects from the old single programme which would have been eligible for transitional Objective 1 funding. Finally, £2million is being allocated through the Department for Social Development for the peace programme.
The Executive recognise the importance of bringing the new programmes on line as soon as possible, and we are negotiating with the European Commission to achieve that. We are responding to serious pressures that are coming forward with gap funding, and we will keep the matter under review. Members will recognise that in the Executive programme fund for social inclusion and community regeneration we are demonstrating the Executive’s interest and funding that interest by supporting positive intervention at a community level in rural and urban settings.

Sir John Gorman: I heartily congratulate the Minister and the Executive for removing the appalling problem created by the inability of many of the public bodies in Northern Ireland, especially the Housing Executive, to carry over moneys from one year to the next. I have appeared twice before the Public Accounts Committee because in my eagerness to spend money that became available through house sales, I had slightly manipulated the rule, and I went away chastised. However, it did no harm to the great improvement in housing in this Province.
The Province has many splendid houses, of all sizes and shapes, but with a ticking bomb about them — because those houses, which have now been sold by the Housing Executive, were built on borrowed money. The Housing Executive has lost the rent for those houses, but still has to pay interest on the loan.

Mr Speaker: Order. In a previous life the Member may have been able to arrange a financial overrun, but he must not arrange a time overrun in this one. Perhaps he could put his question.

Sir John Gorman: Can the Minister help the appalling housing circumstances in Northern Ireland, especially in north Belfast and Fermanagh, the homelessness and the absence of starter homes by allocating more funds for 2001-02 to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive or to housing generally?

Mr Mark Durkan: First, the Member has touched on issues that relate to next year’s budget. Contrary to what has been planned for next year under the comprehensive spending review, there will be an increase in the Housing Executive’s budget and the housing budget overall — 1·5% in the Housing Executive’s budget and 6% for housing associations.
I recognise the importance which many Members, and the relevant Committee, attach to the housing budget. We have tried to respond to questions raised, both about proposed Budget allocations and monitoring rounds. This is not the first monitoring round in which we have responded to particular pressures facing the Housing Executive and the housing programme.
I will deal with end-of-year flexibility and carry-over. The provision to carry resources over into the next year is intended to encourage better budgeting and to avoid gratuitous spending simply to beat financial calendar deadlines. Although the practice of carrying over resources will still require formal Treasury approval, the way in which we are planning to carry over resources is sound and should win that approval. With regard to discharging the historic loan burden carried by the Housing Executive, the Departments of Finance and Personnel, and the Dept for Social Development, will continue to see if that particular problem can be better factored into our plans.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I welcome the increase in the allocation of resources, particularly those to the children’s fund. It illustrates the Minister’s commitment to the most vulnerable in our community. Today is Children’s Rights Day. Will the Minister make a statement on when these funds will become available?

Mr Mark Durkan: Allocating resources to the children’s fund demonstrates the Executive’s interest in improving how Departments and their services relate and respond to the needs of children, and help to support many of the positive initiatives and projects trying to deal with those needs. The Member’s recognition of the relevance of today is important.
We are not proposing to increase the children’s fund for next year because the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has been allocated £1 million for children’s services. The Department of Education has been allocated an extra £10 million, with most of it going to schools. Some of the EU gap funding, not least that which will be going through the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, will find its way to supporting projects that deal with children in need and youth at risk. Those of us who heard the recent findings of the NSPCC will agree that this is an area on which we need to spend more money and to which we need to give further consideration.

Mr Nigel Dodds: In view of the points already raised, can the Minister confirm that the resources announced today represent not new money but the reallocation of money already in the system? Many people will welcome the announcement about the adaptation of homes for the disabled and the covering of the costs of the problems on the Shankill Road. My Colleague has already said that it is a pity that this money has to be spent in this way, but it will relieve pressures elsewhere in the housing budget. I would like the Minister to clarify the £22,000 allocation to the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas (OFREG). Will that money be used to help OFREG reduce electricity and energy prices in Northern Ireland?
A substantial portion of the allocation, £20 million, arises from additional house sales receipts. In view of the great pressures on the housing budget, and the concerns of many Members, can the Minister assure the House that he will examine ways in which that money can be retained in his Department and in the housing budget for expenditure on housing?

Mr Mark Durkan: I agree with the Member that it is regrettable that we must devote money to those purposes because of the situation on the Shankill Road. If we do not do so, however, there will be serious pressures on other programmes —not just the Housing Executive’s but those of many other bodies as well.
We cannot allow housing receipts just to lie where they fall. Not all programmes can generate receipts in the way that house sales can under the housing programme. We should also remember that some of the money from such receipts comes from the sale of properties bought under the scheme for the special purchase of evacuated dwellings (SPED). In other monitoring rounds, money went to that programme to deal with particular problems. When money has been given to the Housing Executive — whether recently, in the context of SPED pressures, or in the past when housing was rightly a priority — it has been at the expense of other programmes, many of which, Members now tell me, were historically underfunded. If money becomes available to us for public expenditure, we must examine all public expenditure needs, not only those that fall within the confines of a particular Department or relate to the programme from which those receipts arose in the first place.
We have given additional money to support the work of OFREG in reviewing charging by Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE).

Mr Seamus Close: I welcome the broad thrust of the reallocation of moneys. I should like to deal, however, with the Minister’s comments about the Housing Executive. As I understand it, the June allocation included £20 million from house sales, making a grand total of around £40 million. The sale of houses reduces the overall costs associated with housing, leaving money that could be used to reduce Housing Executive rents, or at least to ensure that they do not increase by more than the rate of inflation.
End-of-year flexibility for 1999-2000 has produced £4 million from the regional rate for reallocation. Can the Minister not give the people of Northern Ireland an early Christmas present by assuring them that the regional rate will not increase by 8%?

Mr Mark Durkan: I suspected that the Member’s comments would deal with that area. I welcome his broad enthusiasm for the proposed allocations and hope that he will agree that they represent the best possible use of available resources, including the money from house sales.
The extra £4 million comes from last year’s rates. Buoyancy meant that there was more money than we first estimated. If the figures available to us when we come to make final decisions on the rates indicate that an increase of less than 8% will allow us to raise the money that we need for our expenditure plans, we shall consider the matter positively. Last year we were able to set the non-domestic rate at a lower level than I had proposed in my Budget statement simply because the figures showed that we could do so and still raise the amounts that we needed. The projected increase in the regional rate is similar to that projected for the council tax across the water.
Many Members have emphasised that we need to make our case on the Barnett formula and how we are treated in public expenditure terms. We need to remember that comparisons work both ways. We are projecting a rate of increase similar to that of the council tax in England yet our regional rates are running at about half the level of the average council tax in England. I hope that people can get some of those figures into perspective.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an ráiteas seo agus tá mé sásta a fheiceáil go bhfuil airgead breise ar fáil againn anois. Tá súil agam, de thoradh an airgid bhreise seo, nach gcuirfear ar ceal obair phráinneach ar bhóithre na hÓmaí.
I welcome the statement and the additional funds. Will the additional £5 million allocated to the Department for Regional Development ensure the reinstatement of the major road schemes that Minister Gregory Campbell has postponed in the last week or described as potentially at risk from his latest spending cuts? I refer particularly to the Omagh bypass, which is crucial to the economic regeneration of Omagh. I would like to see that back on schedule.

Mr Mark Durkan: The table accompanying my statement details precisely which Department for Regional Development spending lines are to receive that £5 million. It does not cover any of the points the Member has raised. We must remember that we are talking about spending allocations that are taking place late in the financial year. Major long-term capital projects do not lend themselves to qualification in this sort of reallocation exercise as well as some other items do. Unfortunately, I cannot give the Member the answer that he would like to hear.

Dr Joe Hendron: I welcome the fact that a significant amount of money is going to health services. I am pleased that children’s services, hospital pressures, mental health, Shankill displaced families and programmes for training nurses are to benefit. Is the £1 million for children’s services ring-fenced, or merely earmarked? That may be outside the Minister’s remit, but I want to mention it anyway.
The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is shortly to bring forward a paper on the future of primary care services. We must bear in mind that at present there are massive pressures on primary care. I refer to grossly overworked community nurses, midwives, community psychiatric nurses and occupational therapists. Can the Minister, in association with the Health Minister, look at those areas to see if some financial help can be given now?

Mr Mark Durkan: We have been able to make allocations to different service needs in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. We recognise that there are unfunded pressures on children’s services. The new funding should enable boards to make progress in those areas with initiatives to support families and the foster-carers of disabled children, out-of-hours social services and other support services for children and families at risk. This further allocation to children’s services comes on top of £2·13 million allocated by the Executive in the July monitoring exercise.
As far as those funds and the funds allocated for other purposes are concerned, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will make further announcements about their precise allocation and management. The Minister of Health, like all other Ministers, will ensure that these are put to best use and fulfil the purposes of her Department and the Programme for Government.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Can the Minister of Finance comment on the fact that the Departments under the control of the Ulster Unionist Party Ministers appear to have received considerably less than the Departments under the control of the Democratic Unionist Party, the SDLP and IRA/ Sinn Féin? Are the Ministers from the Ulster Unionist Party failing to fight their case inside the Executive? Will he go further and join with me in calling on those Ministers to withdraw from the Executive? They might get a better deal outside than that they are getting inside it.
I also want to draw attention to paragraph10 and ask the Minister to comment on the Executive programme funds. The Minister of Agriculture, who was with our Committee, indicated that she hoped to address the £10million deficit in the vision group as misallocation or non-allocation. Can the Minister give the House — and, indeed, the Minister of Agriculture — a guarantee not only that she can expect to have the Executive programme funds for the vision group strategy but that the House can also expect to have the Executive programme funds so that we can start to address the critical issue of debt in the farming community?

Mr Mark Durkan: I welcome some of the points made by MrPaisley, in particular the enthusiasm that his latter remarks show for the Executive programme funds. They relate well to the priorities and interests of the Assembly at large.
With regard to his earlier points, I want to make it clear that the Executive, in taking decisions on allocations, are taking decisions in a responsible and clear-headed manner. It is taking decisions neither on the basis of party-political headcounts nor on the basis of the party affiliations of the Minister of any Department. The Executive are taking good and fair decisions. No Department is being favoured because of the party-political associations of its Minister. I hope that MrPaisley will recognise that this is the logic of his remarks.
I can assure the House that all Ministers have clear ambitions and plans for the use of public money. That was obvious during the budgeting round and when we were making the in-year allocations. Many Ministers, and the Departments too, have made significant contributions, in terms of ability to manoeuvre, to the debate on the money available. That is part of the work of the Executive in the round. Not all of us, as Ministers, can be part of the Government on a "now you see us, now you don’t" basis. We cannot all play ‘Ministers in their Eyes’ — "Tonight, Matthew, I am going to be the Minister for Regional Development."
We have to work with the total range of public responsibilities that fall to the Executive, no matter in what Department some of these services lie. The Executive have responsibilities, and in agreeing these allocations, they have reflected and discharged those responsibilities well.

Mr Jim Shannon: I welcome the disclosure by the Minister that all Departments, regardless of whether or not their Ministers take part in the Executive, receive equal treatment. That is encouraging. And it is welcome news that we in the DUP are being treated in the same way as everyone else.
My question is to do with disabled adaptations. I understand that the figure of some £1·5million is to be set aside for them. Can the Minister indicate if that will clear up the long waiting list for disabled adaptations? Can he also state if that money will be available from 1 April for those who have been waiting between six and nine months for them? There is also a waiting list of between 12 and 18 months simply to secure an interview. Can the Minister explain what funding is available and the impact that that will have on waiting lists?

Mr Mark Durkan: Mr Shannon asks when the money will be available — he hopes it will be so by 1 April. This is an allocation for this financial year. It is not one of the allocations for next year’s Budget. The Member may also recall that there was a £2 million bid for disabled people from housing associations and that this was met in the first round under the Agenda for Government. However, demand has clearly continued to grow. This allocation will enable 400 conversions to be made.

North/South Ministerial Council: Trade and Business Development

Sir Reg Empey: I wish to report on the third meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, in its Trade and Business Development sectoral format, held on Friday 27 October 2000.
Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Dr Seán Farren and I attended the meeting. The Irish Government were represented by Ms Mary Harney TD, Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. This report has been approved by Dr Farren and is also made on his behalf.
The Council received a verbal report from the vice-chairman of the Trade and Business Development Body, Dr Harold Ennis, on the progress made to date in establishing the body. This dealt with the relocation of the body’s offices to new permanent headquarters in Newry, arrangements for appointing permanent staff and its future activities.
Mr Liam Nellis, the body’s interim chief executive, provided the Council with an update of the work that the body has undertaken so far. He also confirmed the final arrangements for a series of roadshows that will take place during November at four locations.
In accordance with the agreement that established the Trade and Business Development Body, the body was asked to bring forward proposals in four areas for consideration by the North/South Ministerial Council. These relate to: first, the development of a North/South equity investment fund programme; second, the development of graduate and other placement programmes on a North/South basis; third, the carrying out of a range of testing services for industry with a view to the development of North/South testing services on a fully commercial basis by private interests; and fourth, the implementation of standards development and certificate programmes on a North/South basis. The Council had a valuable discussion on the board’s proposals on these matters.
The Council considered the recommendation of a selection panel for the appointment of a chief executive to the Trade and Business Development Body. The name of the candidate put forward by the selection panel was accepted by the Council, and a further announcement will be made in due course following acceptance of the appointment.
The Council considered an Irish Government paper on enhancing the competitiveness of the two economies on the island, North and South. The Council agreed that the Trade and Business Development Body should take this study forward in conjunction with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment with a view to preparing a competitiveness report for the next North/ South Ministerial Council plenary session in March 2001.
The Council agreed that its next meeting in sectoral format would take place in the South in January or February 2001. The Council also agreed the text of a communiqué, which was issued after the meeting. A copy of this has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Mr Pat Doherty: Will the Minister elaborate on the effectiveness of the trade body’s roadshow? Will it sustain that type of involvement with all cities throughout Ireland, or is this just a one-off launch event, after which it will move on to another phase of its work? Does it intend to continue that type of outward projection of its work in smaller cities throughout Ireland?

Sir Reg Empey: Four roadshow meetings have been arranged. One took place in Dublin, one in Belfast, another in Limerick, and the fourth will take place in Londonderry towards the end of the month.
The purpose is, first, to inform people in the business community of the existence of the body. Secondly, it is to try to encourage cross-border trade and the development of supply chains through awareness of what others might be doing close at hand. The rationale is very simple: if the supply chain can be shortened, there is gain to be made from reduced stockholding and the ability to resupply more rapidly.
This is not a new idea. Local authorities have done it by having "meet the buyer" events. They have tried to introduce people trading locally to one another so that they can supply one another rather than import from abroad. It is not a one-off event. This particular event has been focused on a specific issue, namely the development of supply chains and an awareness of the body, but further activities will be undertaken. For instance, in June 2000 the body held a seminar in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, which focused on e-business, and people from America who had succeeded in trading on the Internet were invited to it. Local people were also invited, the objective being to encourage them to take up a similar type of activity.
I see that as ongoing work to implement the operating plan which the trade body presented to the North/South Ministerial Council and which was approved some months ago. I do not expect this to be a one-off event but, rather, part of the process.

Mr Sean Neeson: I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he elaborate further on the Irish Government paper on enhancing competitiveness on the island? Does it acknowledge that there is competition between the Industrial Development Agency (IDA) and the Industrial Development Board (IDB) to attract inward investment into Ireland?

Sir Reg Empey: Competitiveness goes beyond the IDA and the IDB. There is a range of issues. The Irish Government put forward a paper for consideration, and no conclusions have been reached on it. As I said in my statement, the body is currently examining it. The two Departments will take it forward and seek information from other Departments.
The paper looks at all sorts of things including transport issues, e-business capabilities, and broadband capabilities. This is not simply about competition between the IDA and the IDB, which, of course, is a matter for the respective Administrations. The matter will be pursued further, probably around March.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I would like the Minister to elaborate. From a reading of this statement, it appears that we would welcome some reduction or change in the destructive competitiveness between North and South that does not enhance the competitiveness of either.
Will it be possible for the North/South trade body to develop joint marketing initiatives in the USA or elsewhere and will the North/South trade body make any effort to encourage development outside the eastern seaboard and particularly in areas north-west of the Bann and south-west of the Shannon?

Sir Reg Empey: There appears to be confusion about the purpose of the Irish Government’s paper on competitiveness. It is not concerned with inward investment because that is not a function of the trade body. It is concerned with benchmarking the two economies against economies worldwide, seeing how the economies compare with their major competitors and pinpointing their strengths and weaknesses.
The worry about the focus on the eastern seaboard is common to both economies. A few years ago, for example, there was great concern about the level of concentration on the Belfast/Dublin corridor. Many people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland felt — and continue to feel — a sense of isolation. Members will be aware of the pressure that exists west of the Bann for activity to develop its infrastructure. People want to feel that they are on as level a playing field as possible. A similar situation exists in the Republic of Ireland with trade, business and tourism. The people of County Donegal feel a sense of isolation, and this is reflected in the comments of their elected representatives.
The paper, therefore, is not concerned with joint marketing but with benchmarking the economies of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland against one another and against competition. That is the area that is being looked at, so areas such as e-commerce and broadband technology must be examined.
The Programme for Government states that broadband issues in Northern Ireland must be dealt with. That is one means of creating a level playing field for areas west of the Bann and for other more remote areas. I am conscious that in recent years the concentration has been on the east. As the work of the North/South trade body and the Programme for Government continues, I hope that greater efforts will be made to ensure that there are viable and successful economies west of the Bann.

Mr Sammy Wilson: As an avid reader of the Belfast Agreement, I notice that the Trade and Business Development Body is not one of the 12 implementation bodies listed in the agreement. Will the Minister confirm that his enthusiasm for all-Ireland bodies is now so great that the 12 bodies that were presented to the electorate during the referendum campaign are insufficient and must now be added to? Does the Minister plan to add on any more implementation bodies, and will he indicate to the House the cost of the Trade and Business Development Body? Have those 12 bodies reached such a state that the Irish Government are now presenting papers about enhancing competitiveness in the Northern Ireland economy? Is that the route that implementation bodies will take in the future?

Sir Reg Empey: The hon Member obviously mis- understands. The Trade and Business Development Body is one of six implementation bodies set up under the Belfast Agreement. There are 12 areas of co-operation: six are being dealt with through implementation, and six through co-operation, where there is no formal structure.
This body has been in operation from the outset. Its remit has not been altered, added to, or detracted from. In the report made to the House following the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in September, reference was made to the paper presented by the Irish Government. The matter was then referred to this body for further consideration. Anyone can issue a report and put it forward for consideration and it has no bearing on who will make the final decisions on the NorthernIreland economy. That will continue to be the remit of this Assembly, acting through the Executive and the Departments, and there will be no change to that.
So far as this body is concerned, areas of co-operation in a range of activities have been ongoing for many years between the economies on both sides of the border. There are more than 150areas of co-operation, projects, joint discussions and joint working parties. These all operated prior to devolution without input or control from anyone in NorthernIreland. They are now under the Assembly’s control, and Members have the right to question what is going on. No decisions with regard to finance or other matters can be taken without the approval of the House.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister go into further detail on the four areas for consideration that InterTradeIreland has undertaken? How far advanced is the work?

Sir Reg Empey: Four areas of co-operation were set out in the agreement of 18December1998: a North/South equity investment fund programme; the development of graduate and other placement programmes; the carrying out of a range of testing services; and the implementation of standards development and certificate programmes on a North/South basis.
Reports were presented on those areas of co-operation. With regard to carrying out a range of testing services for industry, the report came to the conclusion that no value could be added by the body pursuing that, and the recommendation was not to pursue the matter further. That was accepted by the North/South Ministerial Council.
The implementation of standards development and certificate programmes on a North/South basis was also felt to be an area where the body reported that it could not add value. It was accepted, therefore, that that would not be pursued.
With regard to the development of a North/South equity investment fund, the IDB commissioned a study into small and medium-sized (SME) enterprise finance, which is currently under way. The body has been asked to further refine its proposals in association with the IDB because we do not want duplication or crossover. The Trade and Business Development Body will study the proposals brought forward through that research to ensure there is no overlap.
My Colleague Dr Farren is closely involved in the development of graduate and other placement programmes. He believes that considerable progress can be made, and he is taking that forward at departmental level because some placements have already been completed. That has been happening for years in the private sector, and DrFarren believes that further progress can be made through graduate placements. It is similar to the explorers programme that the Department runs every year in which people work abroad, where they have the opportunity for exchanges and for developing networks. The intention is to do something similar between NorthernIreland and the Republic. It is a solid proposal, and DrFarren is pursuing it enthusiastically.

Mr James Leslie: I read the proposal for a North/South equity investment fund programme with some curiosity and a degree of concern. Whose equity is it? What will it be invested in? Is it a Government-backed programme? If so, will the Minister be mindful of the exceedingly mixed record of such programmes? In the past, normal private sector investment disciplines have been disregarded in pursuit of political objectives.

Sir Reg Empey: The body was originally asked to investigate the four issues that I mentioned in my statement, one of which was North/South equity investment. That was over two years ago and the products available through equity investment have changed significantly since then. More products have come onto the market, and more people are involved, but there is still a lack of enthusiasm and a consequent lack of projects.
We are at an early stage. A report has been produced on what is available, as has a study of SME finance, commissioned simultaneously by the IDB. We will look at the two reports to see what is required. We may need a public-private partnership, if funds can be generated, but we must take into account the implications of providing state aid.
As yet, no firm proposals have been developed. We want to see that there is a gap in the market that is not filled by the private sector or by existing funds. We must also take account of the fact that the European Union has put a short-term embargo on a range of equity capital funds, including, for example, the Viridian growth fund. The Department of Trade and Industry has also found that several of its funds have been affected. The matter still has some way to go, and I have no particular proposal to put to the House at this stage.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Minister’s statement and congratulate him on his efforts to promote North/South trade. I am glad to hear that the North/South Ministerial Council considered the paper on enhancing the comp- etitiveness of both economies, North and South. Does the Minister agree that this is an important issue, given that Northern Ireland is too dependent on the public sector for economic regeneration? Will the Minister assure the House that his Department will treat the promotion of private sector enterprise as a priority? There is much potential for the development of SMEs and indigenous local enterprise.

Sir Reg Empey: I agree with the Member’s sentiments entirely on general economic policy. However, the main vehicle for generating more private sector business start- ups will be the general economic policies pursued by this Administration and by the Government in London. Through the Trade and Business Development Body, we can promote a range of initiatives — including the supply chain initiative — aimed at generating new business. To people who express concerns about such developments I say "Do you not want to do more trade on this island or with other European Union partners?" More trade is in everybody’s interest, and at present there is remarkably little.
12.00
Although our exports to the Irish Republic have been growing, the level of trade between the two economies is still remarkably small considering they share a land border. It would certainly be a lower proportion than between other economies in the European Union, such as France and Germany. We can generate more private sector investment if we can increase the total volume of trade. It is just as effective as inward investment.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
If close neighbours can trade with one another, it is right to encourage that. In doing so, we will strengthen our economy. I acknowledge that we are still over- dependent on the public sector. That needs to be corrected if we are to have the basis to sustain the services we wish to provide for our community well into the remainder of this century.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Roadshows were mentioned in the statement. I know it might disappoint some of his groupies over here, but does the Minister agree that this all-Ireland ministerial roadshow is a disaster for Northern Ireland? Is it not about time that he, as Minister, told Dublin to get on its bike on the road out of Northern Ireland, instead of coming into Northern Ireland more and more?
The Minister mentioned the development of graduate and other placement programmes on a North/South basis. What reassurances can he give the House that these appointments will be open to members of the Protestant community and equally shared across the community in Northern Ireland?
In the penultimate paragraph of the statement, where creeping Nationalist-speak appears to have taken over, the Minister talks about "the South". I assume he means the Republic of Ireland. Will he assure us that he will refer to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland by their designated titles in all future communiqués from his Department, and not allow this Nationalist-speak to creep in?

Sir Reg Empey: First, to say that the roadshows were a disaster is rubbish. The turnout for all of them has been exceptionally good. If the Member had gone to the roadshow at the Hilton Park Hotel in Templepatrick or the meeting the following morning in Belfast City Hall, he would have seen 150 business people, all interested in whether there was any possibility of doing business with one another. It was the same in Dublin and Limerick, and I have little doubt that the roadshow in Londonderry is already oversubscribed.
I think it is good to increase business. If it is mutually beneficial, I cannot understand what the difficulty is. Companies, including some in Mr Paisley’s own constituency that depend on orders from the Republic, come to me to find out how they can increase trade. That is right and proper. I do not understand what people are worrying about, because that is exactly what it is about.
Prior to devolution a huge volume of cross-border activity was being undertaken by previous direct rule Administrations. Over 150 bodies or projects were ongoing, and not one of them was subject to approval by anyone here. Most people in Northern Ireland knew nothing about it. Every six months a list of the areas of co-operation was put into the Library of the House of Commons. No one was able to stand up and ask the Minister any questions about it.
I am conscious of the point the Member makes about language, but, with the greatest respect to him, I will use my own language because I know what I am talking about and I know what I mean. If companies wish to offer graduate placements to individual employees, all those people will have that opportunity, just as everyone has the opportunity to apply for the explorers programme.
Whether a person of a particular religion is going to make himself available is a matter for him, not me, but everybody should have the opportunity to take it up. My Colleague Dr Farren is responsible for this area. I am sure of his commitment to fairness; I have no doubt that he is committed to ensuring that everybody has an equal opportunity to participate. If the Member wishes to put forward any names, I will ensure that they are passed on to the appropriate authorities.

Mr Edwin Poots: In case the Minister would mislead the House, can I ask him to indicate which part of the Belfast Agreement envisaged the setting up of the Trade and Business Development Body? From the annex to the agreement, it is quite evident that it was not envisaged. This body was set up as a result of the Ulster Unionist Party being prepared to give further concessions to Nationalism. The Minister also failed to answer my Colleague’s question about the cost of setting up the body, so perhaps I can ask him again. How much did it cost to set up the new offices in Newry, and what is the estimated cost of running the Trade and Business Development Body?
I also want to ask the Minister about the implementation of standards, development and certificate programmes on a North/South basis. Has this not already been done under the European Union? What is the relationship between this and what we currently have, the BS5750?

Sir Reg Empey: I think the Member did not hear one of my previous answers regarding item four. I indicated that the body had investigated this and felt that no added value could be achieved by pursuing it any further. The North/South Ministerial Council agreed with that, and the matter is therefore no longer part of the agenda of this organisation.
My Colleague Mr Durkan expressly set out the cost of the North/South Trade and Business Development Body in his Budget statement. I cannot answer the question about the cost of the headquarters in Newry with precise figures, but I am happy to write to the Member accord- ingly. I do not know why he persists in trying to say that this body was not envisaged in the agreement. It is one of the six implementation bodies. If it was not set up by the agreement, why does it have a budget, and why have I have been reporting to the House regularly since it started?

North/South Ministerial Council: Tourism

Sir Reg Empey: I wish to report on the first meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its tourism sectoral format held on Friday 27 October. Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Dr Seán Farren and I attended this meeting. Dr James McDaid TD, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, represented the Irish Government. This report has been approved by Dr Farren and is also made on his behalf.
As envisaged in the statement of 18 December 1998 by the then First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), the Council agreed that a publicly owned limited company should be established by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Bord Fáilte Éireann to carry out functions aimed at increasing tourism on the island of Ireland. The Council agreed the draft memorandum and articles of association of the new company and also agreed that arrangements should be put in train to register the company as soon as possible.
The Council agreed that the board of the new company should have 12 members, including representation from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Bord Fáilte Éireann and the tourist industries in Northern Ireland and the Republic. The membership of the board will be formally approved at an early meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council. The Council agreed the arrangements for jointly funding the new company; a South/North funding ratio of 2:1 for the programme costs of the company was approved. At its inaugural plenary meeting on 13 December the Council agreed that the headquarters of the company would be in Dublin, with a regional office in Coleraine.
At the meeting on 27 October 2000 it was agreed that the Coleraine office should have responsibility for printing, publishing and distribution. The Council approved a schedule for the early establishment of the company. A project team of senior officials, drawn from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Bord Fáilte Éireann, is being established to take forward the initial set of arrangements for the company. A progress report will be submitted to the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its tourism sectoral format. The Council has approved arrangements for the recruiting of the chief executive officer of the company. The Council is satisfied that an important step has been taken towards establishing the new company. The Council believes that enhanced co-operation in the tourism sector will bring significant and tangible benefits to both Northern Ireland and the South and that the company, working closely with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Bord Fáilte Éireann, will have a crucial role to play in that regard.
The Council will hold its next meeting in sectoral format in the South during either January or February 2001. The Council has agreed the text of a communiqué, which was issued following the meeting. A copy of the communiqué has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Mr Pat Doherty: A LeasCheann Comhairle, tourism is regarded as one of the biggest growth industries in the world. It represents some 7% to 8% of the GDP in the South, yet only 2% in the North. I welcome this report. In reference to the draft memorandum and articles of association of the new company that have been agreed, arrangements must be put in place to register the company as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Council is to approve a schedule for the early establishment of the company. Can the Minister explain in more detail the draft memorandum and articles of association, and can he also inform us as to when the company will be established? The Coleraine sub-office remit has been outlined, but there has been no mention of the Dublin head office’s remit.

Sir Reg Empey: This is a company, and all companies have a memorandum and articles of association. It differs in its structure to an organisation such as the Trade and Business Development Body, which has been set up between the two Administrations. This will be a company set up by both tourist boards. Its structure is different. It is a trading entity with a profit and loss account. The memorandum and articles of association set out the objectives of the company and other procedural matters to comply with company law. One of the two offices is to be in Coleraine, and the precise functions of that office have been established. Those functions will be reviewed after three years when we see how well the company is doing.
A project team has been appointed by both tourist boards to carry out the operational establishment of the company. It is difficult to be precise, but it will happen in the next couple of months, as the project team is established and as it sets about its business. The company, as a legal entity, must comply with company law. The tourist boards are establishing teams from each side to work out the operational details.
With regard to the functions of each office, that is an operational detail. It is perfectly obvious that if you remove those functions specifically allocated to the Coleraine office from headquarters, it leaves a clear idea of what will happen at headquarters. It remains to be seen, however. We decided to have a review in three years’ time to see whether any changes are needed, because it will be an operational decision to identify where particular functions are allocated.
I look forward to the establishment of the company within the next few months. The project team will bring forward an operational plan and will report at our next meeting, which will most likely be in February.

Mr Sean Neeson: I thank the Minister for his statement. What criteria and methodology are being used to appoint the 12 members of the board? Will there be remuneration? What will happen to the existing staff of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board?

Sir Reg Empey: The board will consist of 12 persons. The present position is that membership will be determined after consultation with, and with the involvement of, the industry, here and in the Republic. However, some elements are already emerging. We have undertaken a consultation exercise with representatives of the travel trades here. My counterpart, Dr McDaid, is doing the same in the Republic. The chairperson of the company will be nominated from Northern Ireland, and the Republic will nominate the deputy chairperson. It is intended that the chairperson, deputy chairperson and chief executive of the NITB will be members of the new board, as will their equivalents in Bord Fáilte Éireann. The balance of the membership will comprise persons who are either nominated by tourist industry interests or deemed to be effective in representing travel and tourism interests. We hope to be able to nominate board members within the next few weeks. Those nominations will come into the public domain when final consultations are concluded.
So far as the staff of the NITB is concerned, the tourist board will continue to operate. The situation is not unlike that which existed during the operation of the overseas tourism and marketing initiative (OTMI). Some people from the NITB will join the staff of the new company, but the NITB will continue its main functions in Northern Ireland, such as regional marketing, together with all the regulatory and statutory functions that it has under law. That will not be affected in any way by its involvement. The NITB and its equivalent in the Republic are establishing the new company. NITB will be a co- owner of the company, and the tourist board in Northern Ireland will continue to play a proactive role. The primary function of the new company will be to market our product worldwide.

Mr David McClarty: I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly with regard to the establishment of the regional tourism office in Coleraine, in my own constituency of East Londonderry. Can the Minister say when this office is likely to open? Has a location been decided upon? If so, where? What staffing level is envisaged?

Sir Reg Empey: I cannot tell the Member the precise location of the office, but I know that one of the early tasks of the project team will be to identify a suitable location. The Coleraine office will be responsible for the printing, publishing and distribution requirements of the company, as agreed by the two tourist boards.
That will be quite an undertaking, as the Coleraine office will deal with all the literature, promotional material, printing requirements and distribution on a worldwide basis. It is expected that between 10 and 15 people will be employed in that office. We expect to have specific proposals at the end of January or February with regard to a site and the establishment of the office. We will review the progress of that office and its functions after three years to see if further work is required.
At this stage it is hard to assess the exact number of people to be employed in the office, which is why I said between 10 and 15. That figure could vary and it could be higher. It depends on what is deemed to be an appropriate form of marketing and whether that requires more literature to be distributed. Internet activity will have to be addressed as more and more people are looking at tourism through the Internet.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I welcome the Minister’s statement on the formation of the new company. It is a significant development which I hope will bring tangible benefits to the community in the new peace era in which we hope tourism will evolve.
I noted the answers the Minister gave to earlier questions regarding membership, and it is obvious that it is going to be a narrow board. First, I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is important that the board reflects the interests of those who provide the existing tourist facilities that we want to develop. Secondly, what relationship will the new company have, either directly or indirectly through the NITB, with the local government partnership and its involvement in tourism?
In view of the need to market our wonderful natural resources — the north coast, the lakes of Fermanagh, the Mournes and St Patrick’s country — does the Minister envisage the administration of tourism becoming more geared to the areas delivering tourism? Should we perhaps have a sub-office in an area like south Down?

Sir Reg Empey: We could deploy most of our resources to establish offices behind every whin bush that people want.
The Member represents a beautiful part of our country, one that is frequently visited by tourists. The board must reflect the concerns of the providers, but that must not be an incestuous arrangement. We want people to come forward with fresh ideas. The board must not be a closed shop for people without any other interests.
I take the Member’s point about local government partnerships and the regional tourism organisations, which are active. I recently attended a meeting of the Kingdoms of Down group, and I have also been to the CORE group that operates in north Antrim. Those organisations have lobbied and put forward names, and they are very much involved. They will continue to be involved as the Northern Ireland Tourist Board will continue partly to fund them.
I see an ongoing marketing and promotional role for regional tourism organisations, irrespective of, but in addition to, the marketing done by the new company. I do not see any conflict between these organisations. The closer one gets to the main markets, the more scope there is for local marketing.
Our main markets for tourism include the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and parts of Great Britain. More than two thirds of our visitors come from those areas. It is obvious that those people have an awareness of Northern Ireland, so this should be focused on.
I draw Members’ attention to the statement of 18 December 1998, where the remit of the company was set out. It said that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board would continue to have access to the services of, for example, the British Tourist Authority and that there would be clear guidance to the company that its promotional efforts should take account of the need to develop tourism in Northern Ireland against the background of the problems faced by the industry there over the past 30 years.
The company’s remit — and this is not yet fully understood — will specifically have to take into account our difficulties over the past 30 years. I thought it would be worth drawing that to Members’ attention, because this is a remit that was not included in the OTMI operations that preceded it. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board is in at the design stage of this company. That was not the case with OTMI. Northern Ireland will have 50% membership of the board, and it will also have chairmanship of the board. When all these matters are taken into account, we are much better placed from a marketing and promotional point of view than we were previously.
The regional tourism organisations and the very significant contribution made by most local authorities will continue to play a part. However, we have to face the fact that no matter what money and effort we put into this, none of it will work as it should unless we have stability in the Province. This is necessary to bring tourism here. We are suffering from 30 years of disruption and conflict, and we still have ongoing, unresolved problems. Stability is the best way to get the maximum number of tourists here. Our tourism industry is operating at only one third of its capacity, and that is a great pity.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Before calling the next Member, I remind Members and the Minister that there is a long list of people who wish to ask questions. It would be useful if both questions and answers could be kept brief.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I notice that the body is to be funded on a ratio of 2:1 between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. Can the Minister inform us of Northern Ireland’s total contribution to the company? In the first year of the Assembly, the cost of the tourism implementation body was included under the cost of the North/South institutions. Can the Minister explain why this has been taken out of that section of this year’s Budget? Is this an attempt to hide the true cost of "North/Southery" from this Assembly?
Finally, I noticed that the membership of the company has yet to be decided. Can the Minister assure us that to avoid the political cronyism which has so far been rife in these North/South bodies, where the party faithful in his own party have been rewarded with positions, the Peach requirements will be applied to all the posts in the tourist company?

Sir Reg Empey: There are conspiracies everywhere, are there not?
The reason that no funds are included in the Estimates is that the company has not spent anything, because it does not yet exist. It has taken time to establish. If the Member wishes that we had moved more quickly to get North/South bodies established, that is a matter for him. The company has not yet been established, therefore it has not engaged any staff, nor has it any premises or establishment expenses. The reason it has not moved at the rate some people would have liked is that there were many serious matters to be agreed between the two Departments and between myself and Dr McDaid, and that all took time. We have taken our time, and I believe that the structure that is now emerging is the right one.
According to the Estimates that were published by Mr Durkan, the budget is in the region of £5·4 million, which is allocated primarily for marketing.
The Member is incorrect in saying that the programme is being funded on a ratio of 2:1. The programme costs are being funded on a 2:1 basis, but staffing will initially be funded on the basis of the origin of the person who takes the post. If it is a Northern Ireland Tourist Board official, the funding will be provided by the Tourist Board, while Bord Fáilte Éireann will bear the cost if one of its officials takes up the post. Given the difference in the size of each organisation, the Republic’s share would be much larger than it would be if the 2:1 basis were applied. However, this will be reviewed in the light of experience and when we see who comes forward.
The board will be made up of people with a clear interest. According to the statement, the membership will be drawn up in consultation with, and with the involvement of, the industry. The appointments are not being made in accordance with the recommendations of Sir Leonard Peach’s report, but they are being dealt with through the industry. All four key elements of the industry, plus others, have been notified, and we have already received a number of nominations.

Mr Gerry McHugh: A LeasCheann Comhairle, it is expected that 20,000 jobs will be created through increased tourism in the Six Counties as part of the development of tourism bodies, North and South. Does the Minister agree that it is a myth to compare our situation with that of the South, given the unresolved conflict at Drumcree each year? Does he also agree that politics must be working here before we can begin to meet our tourism objectives?

Sir Reg Empey: The difficulties at Drumcree create problems but 30 years of terrorism have also caused problems. It is a combination of such factors that has conspired to keep 20,000 people out of work.
The situation has improved. Visitor numbers and the amount they spend have increased, but the percentage increase is not high enough. If we compare the increase in tourism here with that in the Republic and Scotland — our two nearest neighbours — we will see that we are running at approximately one third of the ideal rate. Tourism constitutes 1·9% of the gross domestic product, but it should account for 6% or more.
We have the potential to develop tourism even further if we concentrate on natural-resource-based tourism and other niche markets. Against the background of huge pressure on communities, particularly in rural areas where there have been agricultural difficulties, such as animal and other health scares, largely through no fault of the Northern Ireland farmer, rural development provides real potential for people to supplement their income. Some people have been doing this with success, but huge potential remains, and I hope that we get the opportunity to exploit it fully.

Dr Esmond Birnie: In principle, I welcome this statement and the movement towards the company, but I would like assurance from the Minister on two fronts. First, I hope that this new company will not preclude independent marketing, where appropriate, by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. There is a commercial reason for this: the two tourist products are different to some degree. Historically, for example, Northern Ireland has received large numbers of tourists from Scotland, while the Republic of Ireland did not. There is, therefore, a case for differences in marketing.
Secondly, will the international marketing of the new company concentrate on areas which yield the greatest marginal returns? It could well be argued that those areas will not be in Great Britain, but in continental European Union countries.

Sir Reg Empey: With regard to the first point, I can give the Member the assurance he seeks. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board is not precluded from regional marketing where it deems it to be appropriate, because such a high percentage of our tourism comes from those areas. We will ensure that there is complementarity between the marketing done by the company and that done by the Tourist Board. This will be done by ensuring that the Tourist Board uses the company as the delivery mechanism for whatever regional tourism, advertising and promotional activity it wants to do. It has the right to do that, and it will do that.
With regard to international marketing, as the Member pointed out, we are looking as far afield as we can. There is significant difficulty at the moment with the euro zone because of the price differential, which now sits at a huge 30%. Therefore, while marketing will be an operational matter for the company and the two tourist boards, we are under enormous pressure in the euro zone because of the currency. In the short term, the effort may have to be made more in the dollar zone area or wherever, but it will not be excluded from the marketing portfolio of the new company.

Mr John Dallat: I congratulate the Minister on his report and the emphasis that he has placed on tourism since his appointment. In particular, I welcome the news of the office in Coleraine. I wish to seek assurance that this office will have the resources to tackle international marketing in a way which will give particular emphasis to specialist aspects of tourism. I am thinking in particular of angling, because of the River Bann in the area I come from. Will the Minister also assure us that he will discuss realistic improvements in the transport infrastructure with the airlines and ferry operators? If tourists do not have easy access to Northern Ireland, the efforts put into marketing could be in vain.

Sir Reg Empey: The Member has been very resourceful in managing to get in a question which is somewhat at variance with the topic of debate. With regard to the office, I can assure the Member that there is a determination by all concerned to see that the Coleraine office is properly resourced. It will be reviewed after three years. It has the tasks of producing all the printed and written materials to do with promotional activity and ensuring their distribution, and that is a huge undertaking.
I take the point that the Member makes about his area and the need for improvements in transport, but I expect that you would prefer that to be left for another day.

Mr Jim Shannon: The Minister has already responded to the Member for East Belfast, Mr Sammy Wilson, on the make-up of the board, and he has referred to the tourist industry interests in the North and in the South. Can he indicate where they will come from? Will they be posted to the land mass, or will they be half-and-half? I put a specific question related to tourism to him this week, and he gave a specific response. Capital funds for the Strangford area in the last three years have amounted to —

Mr Speaker: Could your question be more precise?

Mr Jim Shannon: We do not want Northern Ireland to become the poor relation in the new company. Can the Minister assure us that this will not be the case? Will he also assure us that there will be some system to monitor the promotion of tourism to ensure that Northern Ireland gets an equal share and that the east of the Province — Strangford and so on — gets a bit of special promotion? The sun does not just rise and shine in Fermanagh and south Tyrone; it rises and shines in Strangford also.
The Minister said that the Coleraine office will have responsibility for printing, publishing and distribution. This highlights one of our concerns. Can he assure us that the Coleraine office will be used to promote tourism actively in Northern Ireland? It looks as if Dublin will control everything.

Sir Reg Empey: Over the years the tourism industry in Northern Ireland has been fragmented, with various groups representing various parts of the industry. This is a matter of concern and will have to be dealt with in the long term. These groups were invited to indicate the people whom they thought would be helpful on the company’s board, and we have received responses from them.
The Member is worried about Strangford, but if I recall the figures correctly the "poor relation" in all this is East Belfast, which has less resources than any other constituency. I think the Member will find that many areas are doing worse than Strangford.
Unlike the previous OTMI arrangements, we are very well placed in this new arrangement. We have 50% of the board; we provide the chairperson; and part of the company’s remit is to take account of the need to develop tourism in Northern Ireland against the background of the problems faced by the industry over the past 30 years. Its operational and corporate plans have to come before the North/South Ministerial Council for approval. We will approve the appointment of a chief executive. By approving the corporate and operational plans, we approve the promotional activity. That will give us a wonderful opportunity that we never had before to assess whether we are getting a fair share. I have already outlined the funding arrangements. All in all, I think we have a satisfactory structure.
The Coleraine office will do all the printing, publishing and distribution, and its function is to operate on a worldwide basis. This is unprecedented and should give Northern Ireland and Coleraine a unique opportunity to make a positive contribution.

John Taylor: Representing, as I do, the most beautiful part of Northern Ireland — Strangford Lough and the surrounding countryside — in principle I welcome what the Minister has announced today. First, can he assure us that the company will be registered in the Companies Office in Belfast as well as in Dublin? Secondly, can he assure us that the board and staff will be non-political and that they will refer to the two jurisdictions by their correct names? Thirdly, since the Southern Irish tourist industry is five times larger than the industry in Northern Ireland, why should the ratio of financing not be 5:1 instead of 2:1? Finally, can the Minister assure the House that this new arrangement will in no way impinge on the activities of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board within the United Kingdom, namely on its co-operation with the English Tourist Board, the Welsh Tourist Board and the Scottish Tourist Board and especially on the close working relationship that it has with the British Tourist Authority to promote Northern Ireland internationally?

Sir Reg Empey: I will not rise to the challenge of the Member’s first comment, lest there be more daggers in my back than there are at present. With regard to the British Tourist Authority, the statement made on 18 December indicated that
"the Northern Ireland Tourist Board will continue to have access to the services of the British Tourist Authority".
That is part of the agreement.
Since I became Minister, a formal agreement has been signed with the British Tourist Authority. Such a treaty had never existed before and it sets out specific arrangements. Bord Fáilte Éireann is negotiating with the British Tourist Authority to handle destinations in far-flung parts of the world where it would not be economical for either of us to be represented. That is very positive. Both tourist boards have staff in the British Tourist Authority- run visitor centre in London, which is, and will continue to be, our main shop window in the capital.
I will have to come back to the Member in writing about the technicalities of registration, because I am not sure whether it has been registered in both jurisdictions. With regard to the Republic’s tourism industry being five times larger, I do not have those statistics at my disposal. I think it is three times larger, but perhaps we will reflect on that. The 2:1 ratio relates to marketing. The total operational costs of that ratio might be different because the relevant tourist board will pay for the staff who will be appointed. Bord Fáilte Éireann is a much larger organisation than the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. I expect, therefore, in the short term at least, a much larger proportion than 2:1 to come from the Irish Republic.
When this is examined in a few months’ time the Member will find that the actual ratio is more favourable. However, we want to spend a great deal on marketing, because that is what we need to do. We have some wonderful products, but I do not necessarily agree that they are all in his constituency.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Does the Minister agree that we have made major advances this morning in that Sammy Wilson and Jim Shannon want to join the North/South tourist body? Will he agree to try to facilitate their enthusiasm? This is a major advance and something that we were waiting for. I brought that up in case Sammy Wilson’s question had been misunderstood. I think it is clearly understood now.
I welcome the ministerial statement and I strongly welcome the formation of the new body. However, for this body to achieve its full potential — and by that I mean trebling our current turnover of tourists — we need a much more dynamic and effective Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Reports I receive from North American visitors suggest that our tourism products are somewhat unsophisticated, lacking in development and, in some cases, shoddy.
The Minister will be aware of what happened last Easter. Does he have any plans to revamp the Northern Ireland Tourist Board so that it can play its full part in ensuring that we get a substantial share of the benefits referred to?

Sir Reg Empey: The Northern Ireland Tourist Board has received criticism over the years; any public body has to take its medicine from time to time. However, we should have some sympathy for the board. In the dark days of the troubles it had a very difficult job trying to market Northern Ireland. Every time it tried to encourage people to come here, something got in its way, whether it was terrorism or whatever. It has battled through, year after year, and the fact that we are operating with increasing figures, both in numbers and revenue, is a credit to those involved.
I appreciate the effort made by the chairman and members of that board. A number of new members have been appointed in the past few months. Along with existing members, they are attempting to promote our Province in a vigorous and dynamic way. This area is being looked at in the review of the structures of the Department and its agencies. I ask the Member to wait until we are able to bring forward more definite proposals, although I have already indicated in this question-and- answer session that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board will continue because it is essential. So far as the Department and businesses are concerned, I want to ensure that their places in the overall scheme of things are taken into account during that review.

Mr Wilson Clyde: The Minister has answered the first part of my question about the number of people to be employed in Coleraine. How many are to be employed in total?

Sir Reg Empey: There is no precise figure at present. A more substantial number will be employed in marketing operations throughout the world, and that number will be recommended to us by the project team established by the two tourist boards. That is still at an early stage. We could give approximate numbers for the Coleraine office because it will have a narrow range of easily identified functions. I will give the Member a more precise answer after the next report from the project team. I cannot take it further today.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Who is responsible for the transition of the current Northern Ireland Tourist Board’s international offices into the proposed new company? Will the Minister outline some of the lessons learnt from previous joint marketing initiatives that should be applied to future initiatives to enhance their benefit to Northern Ireland?

Sir Reg Empey: Responsibility for the transition of offices will be a matter for the company’s board when it is established. It is envisaged that where the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Bord Fáilte Éireann have offices in international destinations it may be advantageous to bring them together. For instance, it makes sense to co-ordinate in New York, where Bord Fáilte Éireann has a significant office and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board does not. Similarly, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board has an office in Toronto, but Bord Fáilte Éireann does not have a similar operation, so it might be appropriate to link together there. That is an operational decision, and while the decision and the timing will be a matter for the two tourist boards as it involves their premises, these policies will be decided in conjunction with the company.
Regarding the second part of the Member’s question, I stress that this marketing initiative is different. At the core of the agreement of 18 December 1998 was the proviso that account must be taken of the circumstances in Northern Ireland, given our recent turmoil. That is systemic in the marketing operation and promotional activities planned by the company. That must be one of its fundamental functions, and we will look at it very closely to ensure that its materials and the nature of its promotion are consistent with the remit given to it by the statement of 18 December 1998.

Mr John Fee: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I will be brief.
Will the Minister undertake an examination of the role of the regional tourism organisations (RTOs) to see if it would be appropriate for the new tourism company to take over their role in some border regions? I refer specifically to the scandalous activity of the regional tourism organisation that the Minister mentioned earlier. The RTO in Newry and Mourne took £30,000 from ratepayers in the area and subsequently, without consulting the council providers or guest providers, changed the name from South East Ulster to Kingdoms of Down, thereby disenfranchising everybody from County Armagh. Also, not one single project or bed space south of Kilkeel is currently referred to in its literature.
Where co-operation between north Down and south Armagh is not possible, would it not be more appropriate to examine regional tourism within areas such as Louth/ Monaghan, Armagh/Down and Donegal/Derry?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Members’ questions should be relevant to the statement.

Sir Reg Empey: The function of the tourist company will not be to take over the regional tourism organisations. These bodies are exactly as their name suggests, and they will remain independent. The Member refers specifically to a dispute between Newry and Mourne District Council and the Kingdoms of Down regional tourist office. It is inappropriate for me to involve myself in this, save to say that a number of local authorities co-operate in tourism within Northern Ireland and between Northern Ireland and the Republic. I support this activity. An example is the North West Passage tourism promotional activity package, while Strabane and Limavady also have various links with Donegal. I encourage this activity, but the question of the regional tourist organisations is one for another day.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The time for questions is up.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. My name was listed for a question to the Minister.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is not a point of order, but if you wish to speak either to the Clerk or to myself afterwards we will attempt to sort it out.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I do not think you can sort it out then. My name was listed, and I ought to have been called. In fact, you called two SDLP Members, one after the other.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Your name is not on this list. I will enquire afterwards as to why.

Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill: First Stage

Ms Bairbre de Brún: A LeasCheann Comhairle. Molaim go dtugtar a Chéad Léamh don Bhille (Gnéithe IdirThíortha) Uchtaithe.
I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill to make provision for giving effect to the Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption concluded at The Hague on 29 May 1993; to make further provision in relation to adoptions with an international element; and for connected purposes.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Mr Donovan McClelland: No amendments have been tabled, and, as no Members have indicated a wish to speak, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the five clauses of the Bill.
Leave granted.
Clauses 1 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Bill now stands referred to the Speaker.
The sitting was suspended at 12.59 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Mr Speaker: Question 7, in the name of Mr Eddie McGrady, has been transferred to the Department of Finance and Personnel and will receive a written response from that Department.

Programme for Government (Society Divisions)

Mr David Ford: 1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister why there is no strategy to address divisions in Northern Ireland society within the draft Programme for Government.
(AQO 325/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: Tackling divisions in society is a key priority. A range of policies aimed at promoting community relations with annual expenditure of over £9 million is already in place in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Department of Education and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. The draft Programme for Government seeks to build on that and contains a range of actions, including the development by 2003 of a cross-departmental strategy for the promotion of community relations leading to measurable improvements. The programme emphasises the need to examine the impact of key services such as housing and education and to respond positively when people wish to live and learn together.
In addition, the Diversity 21 initiative provides a very clear strategy and programme of action for tackling divisions which have their origins in our different cultural backgrounds and experiences. These represent some of the most deep-rooted divisions in our society.

Mr David Ford: I thank the First Minister for the response, but he seems to have confirmed that while there are aspirations and much rhetoric on the need for promoting community relations and a shared society, there is very little in the way of strategy. The only specific he could quote to me was the year 2003. Does the First Minister really think that the problems of division in society are so much less important than socio-economic issues, many of which get a rather earlier date for progress?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I should have thought that the Member might have welcomed the fact that we do not propose, as recently advised by a journalist writing in a newspaper, to wind up the community relations programme. Instead, we are carefully examining it to bring forward new proposals. The Member might also like to reflect on the fact that this institution, through its functioning and the role that the various parties play in it, can make what is probably the most significant contribution to healing divisions in the community.

Mr David McClarty: Does the First Minister agree that by its commitment to social and economic development the draft Programme for Government itself represents a strategy to heal divisions?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I agree. There is quite a range of initiatives in the draft Programme for Government on the issue. As I said in my earlier answer, however, over and above everything else, this institution is the way in which we can heal divisions in society. As we said over two years ago, we intend it to be a pluralist parliament for a pluralist people.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: On the subject of community relations, does the First Minister have plans to do away with the two institutions that presently train teachers, putting them into one establishment?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am sorry to say that I did not catch the middle part of that question.

Mr Speaker: I am not sure whether teacher training institutions are within the ambit of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Perhaps if the Member would like to repeat the question, I can clarify that in my own mind.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I am asking the First Minister if he is going to address divisions. One of our biggest divisions is that Protestant teachers are taught in a Protestant training school and Catholics in a Catholic one. Does the First Minister recognise that there is no difference in training methods, irrespective of religion, and that everybody should be trained in one place?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I apologise to the Member; it was the phrase "teacher training" that I could not make out initially. I am well aware that there are many people who believe that the divided educational structure we have — the Member has taken a particular aspect of it — generally perpetuates division, even if it does not create it. That is not a view that I wholly share . I do recognise, however, that it is held by a number of people and also realise that education may play a role. At the same time we have to recognise that parents have a right to educate their children in their identity and culture. There is a difficult balance to be drawn on this. I am not in a position to make specific comments about the teacher-training colleges, but, no doubt, what the Member has said will be heard in other places.

Programme for Government (Shared Society)

Mr Sean Neeson: 2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what steps will be taken to ensure that all policies put forward by the Executive in the Programme for Government will be appraised for their impact on the creation of a shared society in Northern Ireland.
(AQO 324/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires Northern Ireland Departments, in carrying out their functions, to have due regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between people of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group. The equality schemes required under schedule 9 of the Act show how Departments will assess their compliance with this duty and consult on relevant matters.
Furthermore, the draft Programme for Government seeks to address diversity and religious and political division, create greater mutual understanding and respect for diversity, and support dialogue and understanding among the communities. We hope that those consulted on the programme will comment on how effectively that programme deals with these issues, both specifically in the Growing as a Community section and in other parts of the document.

Mr Sean Neeson: I thank the First Minister for his response. However, will he accept that this Assembly has the opportunity to create a pluralist and integrated society by including a policy appraisal; putting the principle of sharing over the problem of separation in this community?

Rt Hon David Trimble: As I said in answer to the previous question, it is my hope that this institution, through its existence and functioning, will help to resolve matters of this nature and promote co-operation. That is what we are doing, and we hope the example will be followed elsewhere in society.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: What steps will be taken to ensure that all policies put forward by the Executive in the new Programme for Government are appraised for their impact on the equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I assure the Member that this matter is in our minds. Indeed, in paragraph4(2)(b) of schedule 9 to the Northern Ireland Act1998 there is a clear requirement for any equality scheme that is drawn up in each Department to state the Department’s arrangements for assessing and consulting on the likely impact of policies adopted, or proposed to be adopted, on the promotion of equality of opportunity.
In the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy FirstMinister there is an equality unit, and part of its job is to oversee the operation of these schemes across the Administration as a whole. We hope that we will have a proper focus in promoting equality of opportunity.

Mr Patrick Roche: This debate is being conducted with a high level of pretty empty rhetoric. There is reference to great cultural divides in Northern Ireland. The simple fact of the matter is that in Northern Ireland there is very little cultural division. The inhabitants of this island speak a common language. Their institutions, both North and South, are shaped on the model of democracy within the United Kingdom.

Mr Speaker: I remind the Member that this is not a debate; it is Question Time.

Mr Patrick Roche: In trying to promote harmonious relationships in Northern Ireland in respect of our disagreements, would it not be better to simply insist — not that we should somehow smother our disagreements — that we conduct those disagreements within the rule of law? That is all we require. We can disagree as much as we like then. We still have a vibrant and intellectually exciting society, which we should conduct within the rule of law. All of this other stuff is empty rhetoric that happens to cost a vast amount of money.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am glad that the Member has put it in those terms, because that is precisely what the Belfast Agreement endeavours to do: deal with the differences in society, settle the constitutional disputes, and provide a basis on which we can build and go forward together in peace.

Unemployment (Communities Differential)

Mr Conor Murphy: 3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline the measures intended to be taken to eliminate progressively the differential in unemployment rates between the two communities.
(AQO 311/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Programme for Government explicitly recognises the importance of tackling community differentials in unemployment. That is consistent with the Good Friday Agreement, which commits us to the goal of
"progressively eliminating the differential in unemployment rates between the two communities."
Among the relevant measures in the Programme for Government are: through New Deal, lifelong learning and welfare reform programme, giving people the skills and incentives to get jobs and escape from the cycle of deprivation; the New TSN action plans, which will be reviewed annually; the establishment of a task force on employability and long-term unemployment; training programmes for adults with low numeracy and literacy skills; regeneration strategies for the most disadvantaged communities in the two major cities; and a neighbourhood regeneration task force to reduce disadvantage in the most deprived urban areas. Actions needed to tackle unemployment differentials are found throughout the Programme for Government, including under the headings of infrastructure, planning, and ensuring access to education for all.

Mr Conor Murphy: I notice that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister changed their pattern of answering questions so as to allow the Deputy First Minister to answer this one.
I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s commitment to tackling the unemployment differential. If that is the case, why, in recent months, have officials and junior Ministers from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister been engaged in an exercise to attempt to influence a report from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) which would deny that the differential is a measure of discrimination, absolving past, current and future Administrations from any responsibility in this regard?
Can he confirm that when the junior Minister Mr Nesbitt declares that he is winning the war on equality he is not in fact eradicating inequality and discrimination but rewriting history and securing a Unionist analysis on differentials as Government policy? Does this not strengthen the case that we made some time ago for a Department of Equality with a specific scrutiny committee?

Mr Speaker: Order. I encourage Members to be reasonably concise

Mr Seamus Mallon: The policy of the Executive has not changed. I have already listed the important measures we are taking under the Programme for Government that will help to reduce the differential in Catholic and Protestant unemployment. Long-term unemployment is higher among Catholics than Protestants. Areas where there is a concentration of unemployment tend to be predominantly Catholic. Tackling long-term unemployment and unemployment black spots will help to reduce unemployment among Catholics and Protestants and should help to reduce the difference in the unemployment rates between Catholics and Protestants. It is not for me to comment on press releases issued by people in a party political capacity.
With regard to the second part of the Member’s question, I understand that NISRA produced a briefing note, but it was on statistical and technical matters in relation to community differentials in unemployment. This is currently being evaluated. There are no current plans to publish this briefing note — and it is just that. There may be hundreds of briefing notes going to Ministers at any one time. This note was drafted for internal discussion, and it was concerned with statistical and technical issues. The Programme for Government states that we are committed to tackling the unemployment differential, and that remains our policy.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the last question reeks of hypocrisy, considering that Sinn Féin/IRA’s policy over the past 30 years has been one of economic warfare — that is their term, not mine — which has included the kidnapping and killing of businessmen, the bombing of business premises and the extortion of money from businesses? Does he agree that if the levels of deprivation which have been suggested in the Assembly today do exist, then the finger of blame should be pointed at those who have wrecked the economy for the past 30 years? Does he also agree that it is a bit odd that wreckers are now included in Northern Ireland’s Government?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member is straying from the question.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. It is difficult to see which part of it refers to the role of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I will take the opportunity to restate that we are serious about dealing with the issue under consideration — the unemployment differential. That is a serious matter for the Assembly and the political process. It was not for me, in response to the previous question, to refer to statements issued by others on party political notepaper for party political reasons.
I will not respond in a similar manner to the Member’s question. It is not for me to make any judgement but this: there is a differential. That differential must be addressed, and the ways to address it are identified in the Programme for Government. We will not be made to deviate from that by any utterances either inside or outside the Chamber.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s comments. I want to press him further. How will New TSN action plans be updated and evaluated? Can he assure us that policy in respect of community differentials will remain unchanged?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I will take the second part of the question first. I assure the Member that those policies will remain unchanged. With regard to the substantive part of the question, every Department has, and is now implementing, a New TSN action plan. These will be published shortly. The Executive Committee will watch closely progress on the New TSN plans across all Departments, and Ministers will provide regular progress reports. Each Department will thoroughly review its action plan every year, update it to take account of progress, and build in new targets to follow those that have been met.
We will publish a New TSN report every year to let people see what has been achieved during the year. There will be an evaluation of New TSN, with a report in 2002. That evaluation will involve external experts, and the outcome will be used to assist further thinking on New TSN.
I repeat that there is no change in policy in respect of community differentials. The draft Programme for Government makes that clear. In line with the Belfast Agreement, we are committed to the progressive elimination of community differentials. I have already outlined some measures in the draft Programme for Government which are being taken to tackle community differentials in unemployment. Finally, no one should be tempted into going off at a tangent. That is what those who want to distract us from this objective would like us to do.

Fuel Prices

Mr Roy Beggs: 4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if, further to the resolution passed by the Assembly on 18 September 2000 (Official Report, Vol 6, No 2, p 64), representations have been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the impact of fuel prices on the local economy.
(AQO340/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: As explained during the Assembly’s debate on this matter on Monday 18 September, we have made representations to the Government about this issue. We will continue to work on this matter.
Since the debate a number of representations have been made to the Treasury about the impact of fuel prices on our local economy. Following a meeting with the Petrol Retailers’ Association in October, Sir Reg Empey wrote to Mr Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and brought to his attention statistics which demostrate the huge fall in legitimate fuel deliveries in Northern Ireland over the past five years.
He reiterated his deep concern, which the First Minister and I share, about the plight of the local petrol- retailing industry and pressed again for serious consideration to be given to a reduction in the duty rate applying to Northern Ireland. The First Minister and I have also written to the Chancellor to voice our concern about the effects of the high level of fuel tax and the difficulties that that is causing in Northern Ireland. We have requested a meeting with him to discuss that.

Mr Roy Beggs: I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement. However, does the Deputy First Minister agree that the local haulage industry continues to be disadvantaged compared with its competitors in the Irish Republic. I am thinking of the cost of derv and excise duty. Will the Deputy First Minister continue to press the Secretary of State for increased resources for Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise and the RUC to help them to stop the illegal importation of fuel and the associated paramilitary racketeering? We must ensure that there is fair competition for the honest businessmen who are trying to transact legitimate business.

Mr Seamus Mallon: We are aware of the difficulties faced by the haulage industry and the people of the North of Ireland generally. The 50% cut in vehicle excise duties for lorries and the additional support for the haulage industry are welcome and should go some way towards helping to reduce the severe difficulties that the haulage industry faces. The proposal to raise the threshold for the reduced rate of vehicle excise duty for cars is also welcome but is unlikely to compensate for the significant increase in fuel costs over the past couple of years. For owners of cars over 1,500 cc, there is no benefit.
Ministers continue to make representations to the Treasury on the problem of supply and sale in Northern Ireland and to press for greater action by Customs and Excise, who have responsibility for tackling that issue.

Mr Paul Berry: Do the First and Deputy First Ministers recognise that the differential in fuel prices is lining the pockets of Republican organisations in my area of south Armagh? The differential is damaging legitimate fuel stations in border areas, and the smuggling of fuel into Northern Ireland is forcing many such stations to close. Have the First Minister and Deputy First Minister raised the serious problem of smuggling in border areas? What do they intend to do about it?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I repeat what I said in my answer to the original question. The First Minister and I are fully aware of the major decline in legitimate fuel deliveries to Northern Ireland. There has been a decline of 31% in the past two years. To a significant degree, that reflects the amount of petrol that is being smuggled.
The Treasury Minister has assured us that he takes the problem seriously. He has recently increased the resources available to tackle it, and we will continue to press him for results. Ministers will continue to make representations to the Treasury on the problems of supply and sale in Northern Ireland and to press for greater action by Customs and Excise, who have the responsibility for that problem.
The Member referred to his area of south Armagh. On the basis of my knowledge of the issue, I remind him that the cases that have been brought to date show clearly that the problem extends far beyond the border area.

Policing and Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland Assembly)

Mr Duncan Dalton: 5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the devolution of policing and criminal justice responsibilities to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(AQO 341/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The policing and justice section of the Belfast Agreement states that
"the British Government remains ready in principle, with the broad support of the political parties, and after consultation, as appropriate, with the Irish Government, in the context of ongoing implementation of the relevant recommendations" —
the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland and of the review of criminal justice —
"to devolve responsibility for policing and justice issues."
The criminal justice review body, whose report attracted broad support, noted that there was widespread support for devolving criminal justice functions to the Assembly and recommended that the same range of such functions should be devolved as is devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
The review of policing arrangements recommends that responsibility for policing be devolved as soon as possible, except for matters of national security. The Government, through the Secretary of State, indicated in a reply to a parliamentary question on 26 October that devolution will follow as soon as is practicable once they have paved the way
"by completing the implementation of the policing reforms and giving practical effect to the decisions made on the Criminal Justice Review".

Mr Duncan Dalton: Does the First Minister believe that the devolution of policing and criminal justice powers to Stormont will make a difference to the attitude that the people in Northern Ireland have to the police and the justice system? Does the First Minister believe that that devolution will help tackle paramilitarism in Northern Ireland, and does he agree that it will only be dealt with when Members of the House take responsibility for policing and criminal justice and offer the right kind of political will to deal with the scourge of paramilitarism, rather than have Ministers on the mainland telling us that the normal rules of civilised society do not apply in Northern Ireland?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I agree with the Member’s comments — particularly his closing comments. The normal rules of civilised society do apply here, and it is our objective to see that that happens. The previous question demonstrates that there is a clear need to take responsibility for ourselves and the society in which we live. Only when we do that can we be sure that things will be done effectively.

Mr Alban Maginness: I have listened carefully to the First Minister. Do he and the Deputy First Minister agree that the core element in the transfer of policing and criminal justice powers to Northern Ireland is dependent on agreement between the two political traditions that share this House? Do they also agree that that transfer can only take place in the context of the successful implementation of the criminal justice review and the Patten report?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I have already stated in a previous answer that the agreement so provides and that the criminal justice review so provides. In that context I was interested to see that there was a broad level of support for the report of the criminal justice review and pleased to see that it extended throughout the community. That is a matter of considerable encouragement to us, and it should enable us, when appropriate, to proceed in that matter.

Programme for Government (2000-01 Budget)

Mr Seamus Close: 6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if it was considered appropriate to launch the draft Programme for Government after the announcement of the 2000-01 Budget.
(AQO 323/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Programme for Government and the 2000-01 Budget are inextricably linked and have been developed together. They have been considered together by the Executive, and the Budget was agreed in the light of the Executive’s views on the Programme for Government.
As we explained in our statement of 24 October, the Programme for Government required some final drafting before we could present it to the Assembly, but we expect that to be a problem for this year only.

Mr Seamus Close: I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for that reply and for the acknowledgement that the cart was put before the horse in this particular year, and I welcome the assurance that that will not happen in future years. Will the First Minister also assure the House that as the Programme for Government is developed — particularly in relation to the numerous public service agreements — adequate time will be given to the House, via its respective Committees, to scrutinise and advise on those issues?

Rt Hon David Trimble: As we have endeavoured to say to the Member, it may appear that the cart was put before the horse, but it was not. We want to see full consultation, but there are items in the timetable that cannot move because of budgetary needs. I must say to the Committees — and this is in relation to the Programme for Government and to legislation — that there is a job to be done, and we call upon them to discharge that job. We cannot always move at the pace of the slowest member in the convoy.

Decommissioning

Mr Alan McFarland: 8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail the progress made by the Republican movement towards fulfilling the pledges it made on 6 May 2000 in respect of decommissioning.
(AQO 343/00)

Mr Nigel Dodds: 9. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail what reports have been received from the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning on the issue of the decommissioning of illegal terrorist weaponry since the restoration of devolution on 30 May 2000.
(AQO303/00)

Rev Robert Coulter: 12. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if they are aware of any indication of a re-engagement by the Provisional IRA with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.
(AQO 344/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: Mr Speaker, with your permission I will take questions 8, 9 and 12 together.
In May of this year the IRA gave a number of undertakings to facilitate the re-establishment of devolved arrangements. The IRA leadership stated first, its intention to initiate a process that would completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use.
Secondly, it stated its intention to resume contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) and to enter into further discussions with the commission. Thirdly, as a confidence-building measure, the IRA agreed to allow some arms dumps to be inspected, on a regular basis, by third parties who were then to report directly to the IICD. There have been two arms inspections. The first took place in June, and the second in late October. In its report of 26October 2000, the IICD concluded that it
"cannot report progress on actual decommissioning during the period following the IRA’s renewal of contact in June, and the UVF and UFF’s earlier acceptance of methods of decommissioning and supporting issues."
However, the IICD welcomed this report and looked forward to other such reports.

Mr Alan McFarland: Did the IRA not make certain promises to the NorthernIreland people to put their weapons beyond use, completely and verifiably? The people of NorthernIreland will not have faith in the process until they get an answer to the question which the Deputy First Minister himself put — are they going to do it, and when?

Mr Speaker: The time for questions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is up. Unfortunately, the Deputy First Minister will be unable to respond to that question, save in writing, as he and the First Minister will be forced to do for the remaining questions.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Regional Development

Roads Improvement: TSN Policy

Mr Conor Murphy: 1. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will outline how the targeting social need policy will be applied in relation to road improvement works.
(AQO 313/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: All potential major road schemes are being assessed for possible inclusion in the Department’s 10-year forward planning schedule. The assessments are based on five criteria — integration, safety, economy, environment and accessibility — in accordance with the Department’s NorthernIreland transport policy statement ‘Moving Forward’ which was published in November1998. The process takes into consideration the objectives of the Department’s new targeting social need policy, primarily under the accessibility criteria.

Mr Conor Murphy: I thank the Minister for his answer, but I am concerned that if TSN is to mean anything, the imbalance of the past will have to be addressed. Road improvement schemes in many areas of the Six Counties have been neglected, particularly in my constituency of SouthArmagh. On some sections of the main route into the area two buses or lorries cannot pass each other without stopping. Surely that is an unacceptable state of affairs in the twenty-first century. Will the Minister assure us that TSN will be applied to address the imbalance of previous decades when road improvement schemes were completely neglected?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The preface to the Department’s New TSN action plan states
"It is generally accepted that distance from centres of economic activity contributes to increased social need. Roads Service may be able to contribute to reducing peripherality through major capital schemes. However, the impact on overall social need is influenced by a combination of factors and, therefore, the specific contribution of road schemes cannot easily be determined. The Department has consulted widely including a number of district councils on the development of an appraisals framework to prioritise programmes for capital works. New TSN principles will be incorporated in the assessment criteria. The potential for all schemes to contribute further to improving conditions in areas defined as disadvantaged is also being examined."

Mr Alan McFarland: Does the Minister accept that his announcement last week on major road improvements, including the Toome bypass, which is in an area of social need, has again exposed his party’s "all perks and no work" attitude to ministerial office? Will he assure the Assembly, and the people of NorthernIreland, that the next major announcement by him, or his successor, will mean what it says, and will have more to do with targeting social need than party political need?

Mr Gregory Campbell: Despite some of his comments, I thank the Member for his contribution. I remind him that we do not enjoy any of the perks of office, as our Ministers and office-holders do not avail of official salaries. Perhaps the Member has been misinformed.
A briefing for the Regional Development Committee, of which the hon Member is the Deputy Chairperson, included the need for additional provision for road maintenance, and I highlighted once again my concern to seek some level of certainty in the capital programme funding over a three-year period. The funding that we have is such that some capital schemes may have to be deferred. All these schemes were announced subject to resources being available to allow them to commence.
Each Member, including the hon Member who posed the question, received a letter from my predecessor, dated 20 July, which indicated, not once but on five separate occasions, that that was the case. Last week at the Regional Development Committee I endeavoured to ensure that the necessary funding is in place so that capital works schemes can proceed as quickly as possible.

Mr Edwin Poots: It is interesting that the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee does not read the letters that he receives.
Can the Minister confirm that in the current year’s proposals there is enough provision to start these roadworks? Can he also confirm that unless the budget is cut drastically by the Executive, there will be sufficient finance to complete these roads in years two and three?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I can confirm that the amount that has been allocated in year one is sufficient to allow me to proceed as planned, but if funding in years two and three were to be reduced, road schemes may be unable to proceed at the pace envisaged. My predecessor and I made bids for funding that would have allowed those schemes to proceed and be implemented, but it may be the case that that is not the position.
Because of the media speculation surrounding last week’s announcement at the Regional Development Committee, I am in the process of placing a number of documents in the Assembly Library for Members’ information, including the roads major works construction programme, the roads major works preparation pool, the presentation given by the divisional roads manager to the Regional Development Committee in Omagh on 15 November, and the press release that accompanied that presentation. I have done that in order to be helpful and to ensure that Members are aware that we need the funding in years two and three to ensure that these road schemes proceed. That is my intention, my goal and my objective.

Drainage (West Tyrone)

Mr Pat Doherty: 2. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will detail the amount spent upgrading the drainage system in West Tyrone by year for each of the last five years, and what is the amount set aside for the current financial year.
(AQO 326/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: Expenditure on drainage by my Department’s Roads and Water Services in the Omagh and Strabane district council areas was as follows: in 1996-97, £932,000; in 1997-98, £977,000; in 1998-99, £1,187,000; and in 1999-2000, £1,281,000. Figures for 1995-96, the first year of the period specified, are not readily available, but I can indicate that planned expenditure in the current financial year is up — again — at £1,313,000.

Mr Pat Doherty: Can the Minister give a clear undertaking that his Department will alleviate the effects of the flooding that can sometimes occur three or four times a year in Newtownstewart? Will he also give an undertaking to liaise and work with the Rivers Agency to bring about a situation where the A5 is not subject to flooding six or seven times a year?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am aware of a number of flooding incidents not only in West Tyrone but across Northern Ireland, and I take every incident very seriously. My Department has been looking into the flooding that occurred on 28 October in the West Tyrone area and is currently endeavouring to ensure that measures are taken to make that flooding less likely in the future.
Our efforts can be seen in the amounts I have outlined. We are spending more, year on year, on trying to improve the drainage system to minimise the effects of any extreme flooding, which Northern Ireland has unfortunately been subjected to over recent months.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: Due to the recent lack of adequate drainage systems in my constituency of West Tyrone we have experienced severe flooding, particularly in the Ballycolman area of Strabane because of the failure of electric motors in pumping stations. The main factor contributing to the failure of these motors was that they were clogged with leaves, which tripped the circuits. Fortunately, the local Water Service — and I compliment them on their work — got the pumps back into action and thus prevented dozens of homes being flooded.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member put the question?

Mr Eugene McMenamin: Yes. Will the Minister assure me that his Department will check stations throughout the North of Ireland to make sure they will operate when needed? I represent a rural area, and my office constantly receives calls from residents complaining of sheughs being blocked throughout the constituency. Will funding be made available to upgrade these sheughs and small drains in rural constituencies?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I do not wish to make light of it, but it will be interesting to see how Hansard deals with the spelling of "sheugh". I will undertake to ensure that the areas mentioned by Mr McMenamin are investigated. I am aware of the locations he mentioned, and I have instructed my officials to go back to ensure that the problem is being alleviated. I will write to him if there is any unresolved or outstanding issue in direct relation to the incident he has just referred to.

Transport Infrastructure: Weather Damage

Mr Derek Hussey: 3. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will detail the damage caused to the transport infrastructure as a result of the recent inclement weather; and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 339/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: The railway network suffered some structural damage during the recent inclement weather. There was a landslip near Seahill on the Belfast to Bangor line which temporarily closed one side of the railway line. There was also flooding near Magheramorne on the Belfast to Larne line which washed away some of the track bed ballast and closed the line temporarily. Repairs at both locations have now been completed and both lines restored to full operational status.
The roads network also suffered some structural damage. Severe surface damage has occurred on the B536 (Spout Road, Strabane) and the U0233 (Old Castle Road, Newtownstewart). There was an embankment slip on the A1 (Belfast to Newry road) near Dromore. Repairs are ongoing at the two former locations, and one of the southbound lanes of the A1 has been closed pending investigations regarding the slippage. The weather has also caused surface damage, such as increasing the number of potholes, surface deterioration and blocked culverts. On many other roads across the country the Roads Service has identified more than 30 sites which require remedial drainage work to reduce flooding.

Mr Derek Hussey: I welcome Mr McMenamin’s use of Ulster-Scots. The Minister is well aware of the inter-agency approach to the problem of flooding, particularly on roads. I am minded of the flood alleviation methodologies which are coming through from Westminster.
I am sure that the Minister, like myself, hopes that funds will be consequential to that via the Barnett formula. Has he, together with the Rivers Agency, any plans to use these funds to alleviate the damage to the infrastructure, particularly on roads in the west? It is interesting that the two roads mentioned in the Minister’s answer are in west Tyrone.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I mentioned those roads, not because they are the only ones affected, but because the Member is from west Tyrone, and I had an inkling that he was referring to them. The Roads Service spends approximately £40 million a year on structural maintenance. That may seem like a considerable amount of money, but the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report confirmed that we need to spend £80 million a year simply to maintain the existing network to a reasonable standard, not to increase or upgrade it. I take the hon Member’s comments on board, and I will deliberate on how we can access additional funding in order to bridge that shortfall.

Road and Pavement Works (Visually Disabled People)

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 4. asked the Minister for Regional Development what steps he is taking to bring construction works on roads and pavements to the attention of people with visual disability.
(AQO 319/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: It is a legal requirement that anyone carrying out roadworks, including work to footways, must have regard to the special needs of visually handicapped and disabled people. The requirement for signing at roadworks is covered by chapter 8 of the Department of Transport’s traffic signs manual, which is published by the Stationery Office. Chapter 8 says that protection for visually handicapped people requires roadwork sites to be guarded on all sides accessible to pedestrians. This is not necessarily restricted to the footway side of the works, and provision may need to be made for people crossing the road. There must also be a pedestrian barrier which may be readily detected by a visually disabled person using a stick.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I thank the Minister for his answer, but does he not think that it might be useful if his Department were to inform the Royal National Institute for the Blind, or perhaps the local health trust, of roadworks that are about to commence, so that people with a visual impairment will not suddenly be confronted by unusual obstacles in their path? These groups could then pass this information on to the visually impaired.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I will undertake to investigate what the present position is to see if it would be practical to do as much as possible to inform, in particular, visually handicapped people of impending roadworks that may affect the location in which they reside.

Mr Roy Beggs: In constructing new pavements at junction improvement programmes, will the Minister ensure that accident black spots such as Millbrook and Antiville are developed with the visually disabled in mind? Can the Minister guarantee that these improvements at Antiville and Millbrook will be allowed to proceed independently, in the interest of safety, as was assured by his predecessor?

Mr Gregory Campbell: Obviously I had no notice from the Member of the situation at Millbrook and Antiville. I will investigate the problems, if there are any, at those locations, and I will write to him accordingly.

Mr John Dallat: Further to the issue of construction work, can the Minister tell us if there is a policy of ensuring that roadworks inconvenience motorists for the shortest possible time —

Ms Jane Morrice: The question relates specifically to people with visual disability.

Mr John Dallat: I will write to Rover.

Former GNR Line

Mr Pat McNamee: 5. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will detail the estimated cost of reinstating the Portadown/Dungannon/Omagh/Strabane/ Derry railway line for use by light and/or heavy railway stock.
(AQO317/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: Translink has advised me that there are no details currently available on the condition of the Portadown/Dungannon/Omagh/Strabane/Londonderry railway line, which was closed in 1957. It is not possible, therefore, to give an accurate estimate of the costs for reinstating the line for use by light or heavy railway stock. A detailed study would be required to obtain such information, as well as to establish landownership issues. However, it is likely that the costs would be considerably in excess of £1million per mile.

Mr Pat McNamee: I thank the Minister for his answer. We recently heard concern expressed about the condition of roads in rural areas, particularly between major towns west of the Bann and in the southern division, and the funding problems, to the extent that the Department must consider the abandonment of some lesser-used roads.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member put a question to the Minister.

Mr Pat McNamee: The vast majority of people in those areas do not have reasonable access to public transport. Does the Minister foresee the reinstatement of the Portadown/Derry line as part of a long-term strategic transportation plan?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The consolidation option contained in the railways task force report provided for the upgrading of the most heavily used lines, for the other existing lines to be kept open and for new rolling stock for the entire network. The draft budget contains resources of £19·6million to enable the first year of the programme to implement this option. The report also pointed out that any enhancements to the network — for example, the reopening of the Portadown/Londonderry line — could appropriately be considered in the context of the regional transportation strategy. The draft strategy is due to be published next summer.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: Does the Minister agree that such a proposal would require the upgrading of Portadown railway station, which is still the hub of the North? It would be imperative for this station to be upgraded if this proposal were to go ahead.

Mr Gregory Campbell: This debate is useful and informative. Four months ago we could not have had a debate about additional lines. At that time we faced the running down or closure of the Northern Ireland railway network. We are now contemplating consolidation and, in the context of the transportation strategy, the expansion and development of the railway line. I take the hon Member’s point, and I will draw Translink’s attention to the matter he raised.

Mr Danny Kennedy: The Armagh/Portadown line is also important. It has not been in operation since the late 1950s. Will the Minister consider costing the reopening of that line?

Ms Jane Morrice: That is tenuously linked to the original question. Does the Minister wish to respond?

Mr Gregory Campbell: Tenuous as the link may be, I am very much in favour of the development of railways. In the light of comments made by Members today, I hope to receive their support in campaigning and voting for funding for the railways, so that some development can take place. I will bear in mind the hon Member’s comments.

Roads: Utilities Works (Co-ordination)

Mr Mick Murphy: 6. asked the Minister for Regional Development what assessment he has made in relation to the recent Roads Service statistics showing an increase in the number of road openings by the utilities, and if he will detail the steps he is taking to reduce these figures through improved co-ordination.
(AQO 302/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: Utilities have a statutory right to open roads and footways for the purpose of installing and maintaining their equipment. The number of such openings has increased to some 46,000 per annum, and while my Department’s Roads Service cannot prevent utilities from carrying out this work, it does endeavour as far as possible to co-ordinate their activities. A computer-based Northern Ireland street works register and notification system is now in place, enabling the Roads Service to monitor ongoing and proposed street works by utilities and to negotiate where there is a conflict in their proposals. Also, the Roads Service has recently agreed with utilities the content of a code of practice for the co-ordination of street works and works for road purposes and related matters.

Mr Mick Murphy: Does the Minister agree that the long- term aim of best value is to achieve the delivery of high-quality service and to ensure that the most effective way is being used? Local needs should be reflected in providing the best value for money to servers, users and taxpayers. I am glad to hear that work is being done to bring this together. Would it not be appropriate for Departments to establish a purchasing consortium to deliver the service required, thereby reducing the number of road openings?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I hope that the computer-based register and notification system and the code of practice will be effective. If there is a concern in the House as a whole that this may possibly not be effective, I undertake in a 12-month period to ascertain the effectiveness of these two measures and, if necessary, to look at ways in which they may be improved.

Mr Alban Maginness: I welcome the Minister’s statement in answer to Mick Murphy’s question. I welcome in particular the computerisation and the code of practice. I bring to the Minister’s attention the quality of reinstatement. That is quite variable throughout Northern Ireland, particularly in the urban area of Belfast, where it is very poor. There seems to be no control exercised by the Roads Service, or the Department generally, over the quality of reinstatement.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I understand Alban Maginness’s question, in view of the number, the volume and the scale of works undertaken by utilities in recent years — particularly in Belfast — and the difficulties that reinstatement has created. If the hon Member for North Belfast, (MrMaginness) can furnish my Department with a list of areas that are particularly affected by deviation in the quality of reinstatement, I will undertake to have those examined.

Mr Derek Hussey: Like others, I welcome the co-ordination of road openings by the utilities. In our part of the world it seems that to get a hole in the road you first resurface it, and then you dig it up. My question follows on from Alban Maginness’s. Would it not be advisable for utilities to have to pay a deposit until such time as reinstatement is carried out to the satisfaction of the Department?

Mr Gregory Campbell: If there is a problem in finished replacement works I understand that a simple, straightforward consideration, such as the Member suggests, may be advisable. I will need to ascertain the present position and see how it can be improved. I undertake to respond to the Member in writing about that.

Roads and Planning Services: Co-operation

Mr Sean Neeson: 7. asked the Minister for Regional Development what steps he will take to improve co-operation between the Roads Service and the Planning Service.
(AQO 329/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am satisfied that, generally, there is good co-operation between the Department of the Environment’s Planning Service and my Department’s Roads Service. However, there has been a significant increase in the number and complexity of planning applications, and a joint Roads Service/Planning Service working group has been set up to identify ways of improving procedures. This group is expected to report to the joint Roads Service/Planning Service board meeting next month, and I will then be considering the group’s conclusions. Subsequently, I will inform the House of the findings.

Mr Sean Neeson: Is it not the policy of Roads Service to await the decision of the Planning Service before it considers the impact of individual planning applications? As the Minister is aware, he recently responded to me about a major planning application in Carrickfergus, which is delaying the creation of a substantial number of new jobs in the area.

Mr Gregory Campbell: Part of the problem, as I have said, is the number and complexity of planning applications. For example, there has been a 17% increase in planning applications between 1996 and 1999. There has been an even larger increase in the number of major applications; they are up by 25%. That is one reason for the establishment of the working group. I am awaiting the report on the outcome of the investigations into the problems that have arisen, and I undertake to write to the hon Member once I have received that report.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Hansard the word is spelt "sheugh".

Ms Jane Morrice: That was not a point of order. The time is up.

The Environment

Ms Jane Morrice: Question 2, standing in the name of MrAlanMcFarland, has been transferred to the Department for Regional Development and will receive a written response from that Department.

Planning Enforcement Staff

Ms Carmel Hanna: 1. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will detail the number of staff (or full-time equivalents) who have been employed within the Planning Service in the field of planning enforcement in each of the last three years, and if he will indicate how many will be involved in this field in each of the following three years.
(AQO 316/00)

Mr Sam Foster: The staff resource, expressed as full-time equivalents, involved in planning enforcement in each of the last three years was 16, 20 and 25 respectively. In the current year there are 20 staff in divisional planning offices who are specifically allocated for enforcement and who are working on some 2,500 live enforcement cases. The involvement of other staff in enforcement work varies according to need. On the draft Budget, the resources involved in this work in the following three years should be broadly similar to that of the current year but will obviously be related to the extent of infringements of planning control.

Ms Carmel Hanna: Does the Planning Service intend to consider including the issue of demolition as part of the planning application in new legislation? Does the Minister agree that until that is so we need the real threat of enforcement to protect the built heritage and to encourage sustainable development?

Mr Sam Foster: I am aware that enforcement is a matter of concern. The issue was raised by the Environment Committee when I met with it to discuss the draft Budget and the draft Programme for Government. The Department of the Environment is taking steps to strengthen its enforcement powers in the proposed Planning (Amendment) Bill. This will address the issue of penalties imposed by the courts and the need for the courts to have regard to the financial gain from any offence. The maximum fine for non-compliance with an enforcement notice would increase, on summary conviction, from £5,000 to £20,000. It is also intended to introduce injunction powers to allow the Department to prevent any operation from continuing where an offence has been, or may be, committed.

Planning Rules: Prosecutions

Mr James Leslie: 3. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will detail the number of prosecutions brought in each of the last five years against persons or companies who have proceeded with development work prior to the granting of planning permission.
(AQO 334/00)

Mr Sam Foster: It is not an offence to carry out development without first seeking planning permission. However, to do so breaches planning control, and those responsible for unauthorised development leave themselves open to possible enforcement action by the Department. Planning legislation recognises that on occasions development can take place in advance of planning permission being granted. It therefore allows for the granting of retrospective permission for buildings or works carried out without permission.
The Department does not seek to prosecute those responsible for carrying out development capable of being approved. There have been no such prosecutions in the past five years. However, there are approximately 2,500 live enforcement cases for breaches of planning controls at various stages in the enforcement process.
In the past three years there have been 30 prosecutions where fines have been imposed by the courts for breaches of conditions applied to planning approvals. As I have just said, I will be seeking to strengthen the Department’s enforcement powers through a forthcoming Planning (Amendment) Bill.

Mr James Leslie: In cases where development has proceeded and planning permission has been refused, does the Minister consider that the level of fines which can be imposed constitutes a sufficient deterrent to prevent wildcat development activity?

Mr Sam Foster: The Department takes enforcement action when necessary. We consider that in some cases the courts do not have the powers they should have in order to impose sanctions on people who have carried out unauthorised development. Therefore, as I have said, we intend to address the issue of penalties imposed by the courts through future legislation. The maximum fine for non-compliance with an enforcement notice would increase, on summary conviction, from £5,000 to £20,000 in order to stop unauthorised development.

Mr Jim Shannon: Can the Minister indicate the number of prosecutions that his Department has brought against those who have been responsible either for knocking down listed buildings or redeveloping them? What action does he intend to take to change the legislation so that people who do that can be made more accountable?

Mr Sam Foster: We are taking steps under the proposed legislation to ensure that such development does not take place. We want as much power as possible to ensure that people comply with planning regulations. We are concerned about what is taking place and are taking what the Member has said into consideration. However, enforcement can be a lengthy and complicated process. Fines through the courts are often quite difficult to achieve and not commensurate with the effort required. The Department’s preferred option generally is to seek to remedy any breach of planning control.

Mr John Dallat: Does the Minister agree that even when planning is ultimately permissible a real opportunity is lost for third parties to make constructive points on how a planning project can best serve the needs of the community?

Mr Sam Foster: I take the Member’s point. The question of third-party appeals is currently a big issue. We are giving it serious consideration, and it is quite possible that it will eventually be brought into force. However, I cannot say exactly when.

Planning: Compensation

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: 4. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will outline why compensation issues permitted under the 1965 Act and the 1972 Order have been allowed to continue up to the present when the Department of the Environment has clearly indicated that this compensation is contradictory to a modern planning system which operates in the common interest.
(AQO304/00)

Mr Sam Foster: I cannot answer definitively on matters which substantially pre-date devolution and for which the direct rule administration was responsible.
The Planning (Compensation, etc.) Bill was introduced at the first available opportunity following devolution and is presently before the Assembly. It contains provisions to deal effectively with the matters to which the question refers and provides a further example of devolution working better than direct rule. The Bill repeals various compensation provisions in the Land Development Values (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 and in the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.
It also corrects a minor drafting error in the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. In essence, the Bill will close a loophole and remove a compensation system which is being abused by those making planning applications for the purpose of attracting compensation rather than developing land. This will create a significant saving to the public purse.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer, and I commend him for the speed with which he has dealt with the matter. I understand the particular difficulty he had, given the history involved. Does the Minister agree that this is possibly the easiest of the issues stemming from the mid-sixties Matthew report? That report gave rise to the iniquity of the underdevelopment west of the Bann, including the area which the Minister himself represents, the decision to destroy the rail link to the north- west and the decision to establish Craigavon. Would it not be appropriate for the Minister to repeal comprehensively the legislation and planning guidelines that have stemmed from the Matthew report?

Mr Sam Foster: The Member has been referring to a broad issue, and I cannot make an immediate response. I will therefore ensure that he receives a written reply on the matter.

Greenhouse Gases

Mr Eddie McGrady: 6. asked the Minister of the Environment if, in view of the forthcoming summit in The Hague on climate change and global warming, he will outline what steps he will take to achieve a reduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 308/00)

Mr Sam Foster: The United Kingdom climate change programme was published last week. I was pleased to lay it before the Assembly last Friday. Copies are available in the Business Office. The programme sets out the measures being taken by the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to achieve the 12·5% cut in greenhouse gas emissions which the UK is obliged to deliver under the Kyoto Protocol.
The programme includes a wide range of fiscal, regulatory and presentational policies which are expected to enable the UK to meet its Kyoto target. It contains a chapter on Northern Ireland, which outlines in greater detail the steps being taken to ensure that Northern Ireland makes as significant a contribution as possible to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. These relate to the efficient production and use of energy, switching to renewable sources of energy, planning, transport, waste disposal and agriculture and forestry.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I have the advantage of the Minister’s press statement of last Friday in response to a written question taken two days after my question was addressed. I know that the Minister has just recently come into this Office, in which he must address this huge problem. However, will he address the issue on the basis of concrete proposals rather than aspirations?
For instance, while 8% is the target for consumption of renewable energy electricity, what is the current provision of renewable energy electricity? He says that the planning processes are now imbued with energy- saving objectives, but there is no evidence of that. He refers to the use of willow biomass as a renewable energy source, but there has been no visible sign of any substantial contribution of this nature. Will the rapid transport system that he hopes to introduce be environmentally friendly in practice?

Mr Sam Foster: The Member’s question is long and addresses an issue in which he is very interested. We are trying to reduce the effects of the problem. He may claim that there is a lot of rhetoric on this issue, but the process takes time.
We need to take action to adapt to the effects of climate change. This will involve detailed research aimed at identifying the key strategic priorities in areas such as water resources, flood protection, building design and infrastructure, habitats and land use planning. These will have implications for insurance, tourism, health and agriculture, which will also need to be examined.
I am therefore commissioning a major scoping study in conjunction with the Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for environmental research. It should report by June2001. This scoping study will provide the basis for development of a Northern Ireland strategy to deal with the impact of climate change.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Given the mass of contradictory evidence in relation to global warming and greenhouse gases, what is the Minister’s view on whether or not the present climate changes are due to the natural cycle of events? We have had many ice ages, for example, and tornadoes and flooding in various parts of the world over the past 300 to 400 years. Do the Minister and his Department believe that the present changes in climate are caused by CO2 emissions?

Ms Jane Morrice: That question pre-dates devolution somewhat.

Mr Sam Foster: My opinion may be similar to Sammy Wilson’s, although I cannot tell what is in his mind. Certainly, there is a power greater than any of us here which may be bringing about many of these changes. Nevertheless, it does not stop us from investigating it to ensure that such things do not worsen. What we are trying to ensure is that we go as far as we can within our power.

Wildlife (Dunmurry Area)

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 7. asked the Minister of the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure the protection of wildlife in the Dunmurry area.
(AQO 332/00)

Mr Sam Foster: The protection of wildlife throughout Northern Ireland is one of the key objectives of my Department. Through its Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) my Department seeks to identify important sites for wildlife and pursues a range of measures to conserve it. In the vicinity of Dunmurry in particular the EHS has recently commissioned detailed ecological surveys of seven sites identified in a previous survey as important to wildlife.
The EHS also supports the running of the Lagan Valley Regional Park through grant aid and close liaison. The management strategy and action plan for the parks set out to protect the wildlife of the Lagan Valley area.
My Department also owns an important site for conservation at ColinGlen. The forest park there is managed under contract by the ColinGlen Trust. One of the main objectives of the contract is to enhance the wildlife value of the park and to make it available for recreational and educational use. The trust itself is committed to protecting wildlife in the glen.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: What restrictions has the Minister put in place to preserve the wildlife and trees on the site of the old Conway Hotel in Dunmurry, which is currently being developed?

Mr Sam Foster: Outline approval for housing development on the Conway Hotel site was granted on 5August 2000. One of the conditions of that approval was that a detailed survey of bat and red squirrel activity on the site be submitted to the Department. Until this survey is received, it will not be possible to say what impact the proposed development might have on the wildlife or what actions may be required to mitigate this. The survey report will have to accompany the full detailed application when it is submitted by the developer. I must emphasise, however, that only outline approval was given. The Department will consider carefully the results of the survey. In all such cases the Planning Service seeks to balance the extensive demand for new houses with the need to protect the environment.

Development Density

Mr Eamonn ONeill: 8. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will introduce criteria to regulate the density level of development, particularly in seaside towns such as Newcastle.
(AQO 306/00)

Mr Sam Foster: My Department considers all planning applications on their merits, in accordance with prevailing planning policies, including the statutory development plan for the area, and having regard to other material planning considerations. Development density is a material planning consideration. This is already a factor in land use planning which is taken into account when planning applications are being considered, including those for seaside towns. My Department has recently introduced a new design layout guide entitled ‘Creating Places’, which allows building densities for particular sites to be specified in development plans or development briefs. Where this does not happen, the Department will, nonetheless, have regard to the location of the development in relation to its context, the character of the surrounding area and accessibility and equality matters. In doing so, the Department will take account of ‘Creating Places’ as a material planning consideration.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I welcome what the Minister has said and I hope that the initiative will deal with the problems we are facing. Is the Minister aware that the development of planning policy in recent years has to some extent reacted to pressures on urban development space, which have been so severe that developers are encouraged to maximise the number of units per development? Does he not agree that, while it may be the correct thing to do in larger urban areas, it is not at all suitable in smaller towns with well-established building patterns, particularly if they are in areas of high scenic merit which require a separate set of policy criteria?

Mr Sam Foster: I am aware of the concerns not only about density but also about the character of some housing developments, particularly in seaside towns. This is happening all along the coastline, and I know that there are particular concerns about the eastern coastline of Northern Ireland. Concern about housing density is often closely associated with increased emphasis on apartments and second homes. We know there are difficulties, but we can only take applications as they come to us. The applications are thoroughly investigated and assessed, and approval or refusal is given according to the merits of each case.
In its response to the panel report that followed the public examination of the draft regional strategic framework, the Department for Regional Development has stated that it will prepare a regional planning policy statement on housing and settlements. This will be an appropriate vehicle for addressing certain policy issues relating to the nature of housing developments. Development plans are a means by which planning policies for particular locations can be considered. The Ards and Down area plan, which includes Newcastle, is being prepared, and concerns about the density of development can be addressed in that context.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister not agree that since sustainable development is an important issue in all current Government policies, the infrastructure exists in towns and the Government have themselves set a high proportion of new build on brownfield developments, it is essential to increase the density of developments in urban areas if we are to meet the target for sustainable development and the brownfield site target for new build?

Mr Sam Foster: Undoubtedly, there are currently great demands on housing development all over the Province. This suggests that much is being invested in the Province, and people are beginning to wonder if it can be handled. I take the question the Member has asked, but I also make the point that each case is dealt with on its own merits and assessed accordingly.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I too thank the Minister for his comments on area plans and extensions to them. Does he not agree that this density exists in seaside towns? I know that some of those investments can be good, but does he not agree that the character of an area and our heritage should be taken into consideration when townscape plans are being drawn up?

Mr Sam Foster: As I have said, all cases are taken on their merits. As to the character of an area, I can assure the Member that the Planning Service does not make decisions on applications lightly.

Planning Policy

Mr Conor Murphy: 9. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will detail his plans to review planning policy, particularly where the developer is responsible for related infrastructural improvement works.
(AQO312/00)

Mr Sam Foster: Planning Policy Statement 1 sets out our current policy on the infrastructure works required to facilitate development proposals under the heading ‘General Principles’. My Department will normally require developers to bear the cost of work required to facilitate their development proposals.
While it is my Department’s policy to review planning policy statements on an ongoing basis, there are no firm plans to review this recent statement. This policy needs to be applied in a way which maintains public confidence that planning applications are dealt with strictly on their merits.

Mr Conor Murphy: I note that the Minister said "will normally require". The experience of most people — and I accept that there is a need for developers in certain instances to develop the infrastructure themselves — is that there has mostly been a blanket application of this policy.
Does the Minister agree that in areas where the roads infrastructure is already very poor — areas such as those which myself and the Minister represent — this is an additional burden on developers? The roads in those areas are generally highly underdeveloped. Development is very much desired, so it is a double burden on a developer to have to develop the infrastructure as well. Developers are being doubly penalised by having to do a job that the Government should have done years ago. This reduces development in areas where it is most needed. Will the Minister review the planning policy in that regard?

Mr Sam Foster: I cannot answer for the Government before devolution. However, paragraph 61 of the Planning Policy Statement indicates the circumstances in which a developer may be required to contribute to facilitating his development proposals:
"where a proposed development requires the provision or improvement of infrastructural works over and above those programmed in development plans";
"where earlier than planned implementation of a programmed scheme is required";
"where a proposed development is dependent on the carrying out of works outside the site".
Development plans also highlight specific needs for infrastructure provision to facilitate development within plan areas. The matter of infrastructure provision in relation to proposals contained in an area plan is a legitimate matter for discussion at an area plan public inquiry.
There is an ongoing programme to provide full area plan coverage of Northern Ireland by 2005.

Waste Management Strategy (Agricultural Waste)

Mr David Ford: 10. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will detail the consultation he has had with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development on the implementation of the waste management strategy in respect of agricultural waste.
(AQO 328/00)

Mr Sam Foster: Agricultural waste is not controlled waste for the purposes of the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which sets the statutory framework for the Northern Ireland waste management strategy and it does not, therefore, yet come under the controlled waste regime established by that strategy. However, the EC Waste Framework Directive requires the extension of the control regime to agricultural waste.
As indicated in the waste management strategy, my Department and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development intend to collaborate in the preparation of an agricultural waste strategy. We plan to have this strategy completed and incorporated into the overall waste management strategy at the first review point in 2002.
As a first step, officials in the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will shortly carry out a study into the nature of agricultural waste in Northern Ireland.

Mr David Ford: I am glad to hear that discussions have at least started. However, can the Minister give us an assurance that he will do all he can, in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and its Minister, to ensure that the more intensive agricultural sectors in Northern Ireland, which are already under severe stress, do not suffer further when the new EU Directive is introduced? Will his plans be in place to deal with that?

Mr Sam Foster: I can assure the Member that this Department does not take anything lightly. This Department and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will collaborate to develop an agricultural waste strategy once the scope and definition of the control of agricultural waste has been clarified. As a first step, both Departments will co-ordinate their information campaigns and good practices on the safe and sustainable management of waste materials.

Planning Rules

Mr Gardiner Kane: 11. asked the Minister of the Environment to give an assurance that he will apply the planning rules evenly and impartially to all applicants.
(AQO 314/000)

Mr Sam Foster: Planning Policy Statement 1 sets out the general principles that the Department observes when carrying out its planning functions. The Department is committed to discharging its responsibilities in an honest, impartial and open manner. It is the Department’s policy that all planning applications are considered on their merits, in accordance with prevailing planning policies. Those include the statutory development plan for the area and having regard for any other material considerations.
It is also the Department’s policy that planning applications are dealt with in a fully documented and corporate decision-making process.

Mr Gardiner Kane: Can the Minister assure the House that he will take the initiative and give more flexibility to rural planning control, especially where the agriculture sector is concerned?

Mr Sam Foster: I am not sure that this question is in line with the initial question. However, rural planning is very dear to my heart, and I give an assurance that we will consider rural communities and do what we can to assist them.

Leylandii Trees

Mr Jim Wilson: 13. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will introduce legislation to place height restrictions on the growing of Leylandii trees on private property.
(AQO 335/00)

Mr Sam Foster: I have no plans to introduce such legislation at this time. I am aware of plans in England and Wales to introduce legislation to control the height of Leylandii and other high hedges. Considerable time and resources were devoted there to researching this subject, and a working party was established in 1998. There is not sufficient evidence to merit resources being diverted from other important matters to carry out similar research in Northern Ireland, or to progress work to a stage where legislation could be introduced. All available resources are fully committed to an existing programme of work.
I am aware, however, that this is an issue of concern for some individuals, and I will keep the Department’s priorities under review, including whether higher priority should be given to this issue.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Mr Jim Wilson: I thank the Minister for his reply. Given that councillors and public health departments are inundated with distressed residents in private properties who suffer considerable inconvenience on this matter, can the Minister assure us that he will make every effort to bring forward effective legislation?

Mr Sam Foster: I assure Mr Wilson that we will see what we can do. The issue is currently being discussed in England and Wales. We will take our cue from what happens there and consider how it affects us in Northern Ireland.

Health and Personal Social Services Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

Dr Joe Hendron: I beg to move
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(2) be extended to Friday23February2001 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Health & Personal Social Services Bill [NIA3/00].
The Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee welcomes in principle the Health and Personal Social Services Bill, which covers a wide range of issues including: the establishment of a regulatory body for social care workers; the recovery from insurance companies of health service costs of treating road traffic casualties; repeal of the law relating to GP fundholding; changes to the administration and financial arrangements for health and social services trusts; measures to reduce fraudulent evasion of health service charges; and the power to regulate pharmacists. I have mentioned only some of the 19 disparate matters covered by this important Bill.
I hope that Members will appreciate that to allow the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee sufficient time to give due consideration to the many complex issues raised, an extension of the Committee Stage is necessary. Although we are seeking an extension until 23February2001 to cover all eventualities, I hope that we may be in a position to report to the Assembly earlier. I therefore ask Members to support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(2) be extended to Friday 23 February 2001 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services Bill [NIA 3/00].

Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

Mr Francie Molloy: I beg to move
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(2) be extended to Friday 27 April 2001 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Bill [NIA 5/00].
A Cheann Comhairle, the Committee Stage of the Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Bill began on 24 October 2000. The Committee was at that time also dealing with the Ground Rents Bill. The Committee has now concluded its consideration on that Bill, and the Minister of Finance and Personnel has given priority to the Government Resources and Accounts Bill, requesting that the Committee deal with it next. I have therefore sought an extension to Friday 27 April 2001 to ensure that the Department of Finance and Personnel is able to complete the Committee Stage of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill before embarking on consideration of this one.
I hope that in moving the Government Resources and Accounts Bill, which I will attempt later, we will have time to deal with it sooner than expected. We have one bite at this, and we must ask for an extension within the 30-day period. We need to move this motion today to give ourselves an assurance for the future and ample time to complete the task. I ask Members to support the motion.

Mr Speaker: I want to make one remark on a point of order in response to what the Member has said about proposing motions for extension within the 30-day period. Standing Orders are quite clear that the request must be made within 30 days. As I am creative of mind, I could work out circumstances where more than one such motion might be possible within the 30-day period. The issue concerns the 30 days rather than only one motion. The Procedures Committee might examine the matter again. I wished to clarify that for the Member — indeed, for the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(2) be extended to Friday 27 April 2001 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Bill [NIA 5/00].

Government Resources and Accounts Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

Mr Francie Molloy: I beg to move
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(2) be extended to Friday 2 March 2001 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill [NIA 6/00].
A Cheann Comhairle, the Government Resources and Accounts Bill will have an enduring impact on the way in which Government resources are planned and controlled. It will affect this Assembly and all Government Departments and agencies, as well as the public sector.
The incoming financial year — 2001-02 — is the target date for introducing the Resource and Accounting Bill budget. We need to address this Bill, because it is complex, dealing with issues such as public accountability, which require careful scrutiny by the Committee and the Assembly. The Committee Stage of this Bill began on 8 November 2000. Since then the Finance and Personnel Committee has taken evidence on the Bill. A number of concerns have arisen as to how it will operate if the Assembly approves the Bill as it now stands. It is therefore important that sufficient time be given for the proper consideration of the Bill.
It is the Committee’s view that this scrutiny will take several weeks to complete. Although I sought an extension until 2 March 2001, my Committee gave a commitment last Thursday to the Minister of Finance and Personnel to complete its scrutiny by 26 January 2001. That will allow the Assembly and the Department sufficient time to complete the remaining stages of the Bill.
Since the Committee has given a commitment to the Minister to move this forward, we will support the amendment put forward by him. Obviously, this new timescale will mean extra Committee meetings and the devotion of extra time to the Bill. Given the number of meetings necessary with so many Bills coming through the Committee, that is a difficulty. However, if we are to meet the timescale laid down, Members will have to form a quorum at Committee meetings. I ask all parties and Committee members to facilitate matters by ensuring that the Committee has a quorum with which to operate.

Mr Speaker: One amendment, standing in the name of the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Durkan, is being accepted.

Mr Mark Durkan: I beg to move the following amendment: In line 2, after "Friday", delete "2 March" and insert "26 January".
I am very grateful to the Finance and Personnel Committee for agreeing that the Committee Stage of this Bill should be completed by 26 January 2001. I recognise the full range of demands on the Committee at present on both policy and legislative issues. However, it is essential that this Bill be enacted before the beginning of the next financial year. The Treasury has already moved the planning system onto the basis of resource budgeting from 2001-02 onwards. It would simply not be manageable to run the planning and monitoring of public spending on resource accounting and the estimates and accounts on cash accounting.
Completion of the Committee Stage on 26 January will mean that the remaining stages will all need to proceed without any delay on the fastest timetable available if the Bill is to be enacted before the beginning of the new financial year. I have written to the Finance and Personnel Committee and the Public Accounts Committee today in response to their concerns about the accountability aspects of the Bill, and especially the need for the Comptroller and Auditor General to be able to fulfil his role fully and properly on behalf of the Assembly in general and the Public Accounts Committee in particular.
I will propose that this be addressed fully in forthcoming legislation, allowing us to take account of the outcome of the Sharman review, which addresses related issues in Whitehall. We do not necessarily need to follow any approach that might emerge there, but we should take it into account and learn what we can from experience elsewhere. I hope that these firm reassurances to the Committees and to the Assembly as a whole will remove any doubts about the effects of proceeding with this Bill quickly. Thus my amendment, which reflects the position agreed by the Finance and Personnel Committee last Thursday, should be accepted. I welcome the fact that if this be the case, it should in turn assist with the earlier completion of the Committee Stage of the Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Bill.

Mr James Leslie: I rise to support the motion and confirm that the matter was indeed discussed with the Committee after its Chairman had laid the original motion before the House. In view of the timing and the need to achieve Royal Assent by the end of the financial year, the Committee will endeavour to meet the earlier target.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
In addressing this amendment, I should like to take the opportunity to make one or two remarks on the subject of the extension of Committee Stages, which is becoming a regular feature of business in the House.
When the amendments to Standing Orders were put through, towards the end of the last session, both MrFee and I remarked that while we welcomed the addition of an extra Consideration Stage, we were not convinced that the overall structure of the procedures was appropriate. It is becoming manifest that that is the case. Whereas the earlier provision for Consideration Stages in the first draft of Standing Orders proved to be excessively long, we have now moved the pendulum too far in the other direction and the standard period is too short. Consequently, this is not an ill reflection on those Committees seeking extensions, as that is inevitable because of the shortness of the period.
There are two other matters that need to be taken into account by Members, the Procedures Committee and perhaps the Business Committee. First, those Members involved in Committees considering Bills are becoming aware of the considerable extra volume of work that this entails. I wonder if we should give consideration, in the timing of our recesses, to delaying the restart of the plenary sittings, if that is reasonable given the programme of business, but not the start of Committee work. Perhaps we could have two or three weeks at the beginning of term when Committees could work uninterrupted before the plenaries recommenced. I hope the relevant Committees will take that into account when planning future business.
Secondly, there is the issue of the hours worked by Members. Some remarks were addressed to the Chamber last week on the subject of family-friendly hours. I did not agree with those remarks, although there was no opportunity to respond to them at the time — they were ill-considered. It is not realistic for a legislative assembly to expect to work what appears to be rather less than a 40-hour week. The pressure of business and the need to get some of the business through in prescribed time frames are such that Members must accept that the hours, from time to time, will be very unfriendly indeed. Some of those hours will perforce be quite long.
We need to be aware that House of Commons Committees typically sit for fivehours at a stretch — perhaps twice a week — hammering on until they get to the end of a Bill. Members will need to bear this in mind. However, it should also be said that that is a much larger House and the frequency with which Members have to participate in Committees processing legislation is far less. Therefore, that should be regarded as the exception rather than the rule. Nevertheless, Members must be prepared, from time to time, to put their shoulders to the wheel in bursts of considerable activity.
In conclusion, I hope that those responsible for the procedures of the House will take these remarks into account. I support the amendment.

Mr Seamus Close: As members of the Finance and Personnel Committee are aware, I registered my objection to such an amendment at the last meeting of the Committee. I do so again today — first, to be consistent and secondly, to take the opportunity of expressing to the House how strange I find it that a few weeks ago, when we first discussed this Bill, the Committee took the view that it was necessary to have an extension to 2May. That happened just a couple of weeks ago, and now it appears that the Committee is prepared to take the proverbial U-turn. To paraphrase a certain "ironlady", "You can turn if you like. This gentleman from Lagan Valley is not for turning."
It has to be stressed that this legislation coming before the Finance and Personnel Committee has been described as a fundamental change in Government accountability. I go further and say that the Treasury — a body not given to any exaggerated claims, as all Members will be aware — has described it as the biggest reform of public finance management since the Gladstone era.
I take it rather ill that the Treasury, the Department or the Minister should attempt in any way to rush this piece of fundamental legislation through the House. If we do so, we will be doing the people we represent and ourselves a great disservice. We will further erode and reduce the role of the Statutory Committees of the House. It is not the first time that I have risen to complain about the way in which we have, over these past two years, been constantly urged, exhorted, coerced into rolling over in order that predetermined time limits are met. The time has now come to draw a line under that. If we have a scrutiny role to perform, we have a statutory responsibility to those who sent us here to perform that role.
I do not have any objection in principle to changing to resource accounting. In fact, I welcome it. However, I have great difficulties with various terms and sections of the Bill that, on the face of it, would appear to restrict the powers, for example, of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and to curtail and restrict accountability, scrutiny and transparency. After all, we have heard from almost every Minister who has stood in the House that transparency must be a watchword. Where is that transparency if we are not allowed the time to do the job for which we were elected?
This problem confronts not only the Finance and Personnel Committee, but I will restrict my remarks to the Committee on which I serve. We were told recently during the debate on the Budget that we would have adequate time to look at the draft Budget and to bring forward amendments and recommendations. Likewise with the draft Programme for Government, and now equally, within the same curtailed time frame, we have another major piece of legislation about which we are told "Never mind; it will be all right on the night." That is not good enough.
I want to have the opportunity to bring about the necessary amendments to this Bill, not to slavishly follow Westminster. I do not want to wait for Sharman. I want to use the abilities of the members of the Committee and to represent the views of our electorate to bring about the necessary changes. If the Scottish Parliament decided that it was not accepting the Bill on the face of it, and made the necessary changes, why can we not do the same? Why are we not given the time? Half right is not good enough. We should strive for as perfect a Bill as we can get to ensure that the accountability is there in black and white.

Mr Peter Weir: I support the remarks made by Mr Leslie. I also have a good deal of sympathy with MrClose’s comments. This is an important Bill in its impact on the Department of Finance and Personnel. It is vital that major pieces of financial legislation such as this be given proper scrutiny by the Finance and Personnel Committee. We need to have the time and the resources to fulfil this role. The Committee’s main function should be the scrutiny of key financial areas such as the legislation in the Bill. Its most crucial job is scrutinising the Budget. Again, there are question marks over the time available for that.
The fact that we have to ask for an extension on this Bill raises a much more fundamental question. Indeed, some of the issues raised by James Leslie bear close scrutiny. There is not enough time to scrutinise Bills. It is an acute concern with the Finance and Personnel Committee, but also concerns other Committees. We are left with two alternatives. Either we rubber-stamp Bills without giving them proper scrutiny — which is not our role — or we ask for more time for Bills. If the latter option is chosen, we are in danger of building up a massive backlog.
This issue must be tackled properly, and there are two areas which need to be examined. First, the level of resources available to the Committees must be looked at. There have been many complaints about the cost of the Assembly and the amount of money being spent on recruitment. However, there is one area which has not been adequately addressed, and that is the provision of resources and proper support for Committees. The civil servants servicing those Committees are doing an excellent job and are working extremely hard, but if we are going to cut back on the number of extensions, those Committees must be given the resources to be able to — [Interruption].

Mr John Fee: The Member is absolutely right. As one of two Assembly Commissioners present in the Chamber, I can advise the House that we have just completed the first round of recruitment for Clerks’ positions, although the appointments have not yet been made. Considerable steps are being taken to meet Members’ concerns.

Mr Peter Weir: I appreciate that point, and I realise that there has been a complication in hiring the appropriate staff. Indeed, that was one of the principal reasons for the Hallowe’en recess. It was driven by the needs of the Civil Service, rather than the needs of Members. As Mr Leslie pointed out, we must consider the possibility of having no restrictions on the number of hours Committees sit and ensure that they have the resources to do the job properly. If they are going to tackle their level of work and deal with issues in a correct way, Committees must meet more regularly and for longer hours.
There is also a specific problem with the Finance and Personnel Committee — and this Bill is symptomatic of it. The Committee on Procedures must look at that problem. As I said, the first priority of the Finance and Personnel Committee is to scrutinise the Budget, and the second priority is to deal with financial legislation, of which this is a perfect example. The problem that must be examined is the fact that the Office of Law Reform, which is responsible for wide areas of civil law, is included in the Department of Finance and Personnel. As a result, the Department of Finance and Personnel is the sponsoring Department for a wide range of issues — for example, the Ground Rents Bill, on which the Committee spent a long time. Although this was worthy legislation, it was probably no more relevant to the Department of Finance and Personnel than to any other Department. There are other pieces of legislation due which would fit in more comfortably with other Departments. If the Finance and Personnel Committee is to do its job properly, the Committee on Procedures must consider sharing the legislation that comes from the Office of Law Reform with other Departments.
While I support the extension in the case of the Bill, a clear warning signal must be given today. We cannot defer Bills into the distant future because of the system’s structure. We must ensure that Bills such as this are given proper scrutiny. Otherwise we will not be doing our jobs as Assembly Members properly.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I echo entirely the sentiments raised by MrClose, Mr Weir and, originally, MrLeslie. Most Committee members feel that there is inadequate time to scrutinise properly everything that they are supposed to. That raises a question about the role of Committees. Are they sufficiently resourced and able to carry out their tasks? The Committees believe that there is not enough time, but if more time is sought, that will clash with other business. The Committee on Procedures should examine, in the first instance, whether Committees are adequately staffed, and secondly, how to find enough time for them to meet. Otherwise we could relapse into another form of direct rule, whereby Committees are merely an exercise in rubber-stamping — a term that has already been used this afternoon.
It behoves the House, if it is to look at the issue seriously, to enhance the role of Committees, and that means ensuring that they have adequate time in which to carry out their work. Otherwise the term "scrutiny" will mean a casual glance, and "transparency" will mean opaqueness. The Committees are currently finding it difficult to take more than a scant glance at legislation and issues for discussion that come their way. For instance, the Ground Rents Bill is still somewhere in the bowels of the system, and there is not yet an end result. Yet it is only a minor piece of legislation.
The Government Resources and Accounts Bill, which is now before the Finance Committee, is described by some as a reforming Bill that deserves proper scrutiny within a reasonable time and with proper resources.
There has been a call today for the Procedures Committee not only to enhance the resources of Committees but also to examine how the Committee system operates. If we do not do that, we may not get the Committees operating properly through a lack of resources, time and a proper allocation of those resources around the system, which everyone genuinely wants to work.

Mr Mark Durkan: First, I acknowledge the seriousness of the point that Members have made. I appreciate the particular difficulties faced by the members of the Finance and Personnel Committee because of the timetabling of business and the legislative workload. That Committee is already dealing with a number of items of legislation, and many Members, when they joined, did not foresee the volume of legislation that would be passing through. They joined in the belief that the emphasis would be on finance and personnel rather than on other aspects of the Department’s responsibilities. As the Minister of Finance and Personnel, I carry those responsibilities and, under the agreement and the legislation, part of the Committee’s role is to advise and assist me on those matters.
I accept that other Departments and Committees may have an interest in certain areas of legislation. Although members of other Committees may assert this in the House, they do not necessarily pursue their interest by taking the opportunity afforded to them to contribute to the work on those pieces of legislation.
I want to raise again a point of concern about comments made in the House on legislation coming from the Office of Law Reform. I sympathise with some of the concerns and frustrations that Members have, which have been reinforced by scheduling difficulties. However, I do not want to create a situation where the work of the Office of Law Reform is orphaned by the Department and the Committees. We must remember that the objective is law reform and, therefore, the development of legislative proposals. I accept Members’ points on this matter, but, as an Assembly, we need to review and reform legislation properly. We should therefore think carefully before we send out signals about not being sure about how to deal with certain details of law reform. We need to consider the optimum means of discharging our business in those areas.
The Government Resources and Accounts Bill is an important piece of legislation. It will help to change significantly how we present public expenditure plans and how they manifest themselves in the accounts and in the Budget. However, the Bill reflects the legislation brought forward by the Treasury. That is why there was no extensive consultation exercise. We were not making significant changes beyond those which might be expected in the context of the end of direct rule.
Some members of the Finance and Personnel Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee raised points about what they believe to be inadequate content and coverage of the Bill. The Bill is about accounts rather than accountability and audit. If the Bill were extended to take in those issues — and some people say it should be — it would be a more serious and extensive piece of legislation. That would require more serious and elaborate public consultation because it would make significant changes to the treatment for audit and accountability purposes of moneys that are handled by different bodies. Those bodies may be private sector, voluntary/community sector or non-departmental bodies in what all of us would have understood and assumed to be the public sector.
Those are valid issues, but if they were to be addressed in the Bill, it would change in character and more time would be required. It was possibly for those reasons that members of the Committee said that they would need until May to consider it because they had more work to do. It was legitimate for the Finance and Personnel Committee to say that, and it will be equally legitimate for it to say that about the further legislation that must be worked through — the Audit Reorganisation Bill. That will address issues such as auditing and the rights of access of the Comptroller and Auditor General. That Bill will deal with some of the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Northern Ireland Audit Office.
That is the relevant and appropriate legislation in which to deal with and address those issues, and the Department of Finance and Personnel is serving notice of that to all the interested Committees. As well as talking to the Finance and Personnel Committee, I attended a joint meeting of the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee and told them why we believed that some of the areas being pursued by Members are inappropriate to the Bill. That does not mean that they are not appropriate; it means that there will be subsequent legislation appropriate to them.
The Department of Finance and Personnel is serving notice now — as it has done before — to the relevant Committees. They can pursue the matters and develop their proposals and interests in those areas now. They do not need to await further proposals, particularly from the Department of Finance and Personnel, and the Finance and Personnel Committee is already working on those areas.
It is clear from the discussions today and from what has taken place in Committees that the Committees are already pursuing those areas. That is happening at a pre- legislative stage, and that is as it should be. On that basis it is hoped that Members are prepared to accept the amendment because it is important that the legislation is passed before the end of the financial year. The Assembly will be in an impossible position if the legislation is not passed before then. If it is passed, the Department of Finance and Personnel will be able to pursue the important questions that the Finance and Personnel Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee are raising.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I agree with and share the concerns of Members who have spoken about the timescale. I particularly take on board MrClose’s points, which he also made in the Committee. There is a grave need for the correct scrutiny to take place in all the Committees if the Assembly is to get proper legislation. If this were the final legislation on the issue, the Committee would be holding firm to the latter date of 2March.
We are confident from the Minister’s statement that there will be further legislation ensuring access to the Comptroller and Auditor General so that he can provide proper guidance. That will bring us on another stage.
This important piece of legislation will help Committees carry out their scrutiny function. It will make the Departments and structures more accountable to the Committees and to the Assembly. It is important that we move things forward quickly so that we can get the legislation soon. It will give us some teeth, and it will ensure that we can make people accountable. The Committee asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for a number of assurances. The Committee received those assurances, and I am certain that they will be lived up to.
We can make the changes that MrClose talked about in relation to the face of the Bill. We can do it, even with the shorter timescale. However, it is not only time that the Committee needs to make the necessary changes to the face of the Bill; it takes proposals, amendments, and motions coming to the Assembly. I am confident that, with the proper proposals and amendments coming forward at Committee Stage, some aspects of the Bill that are relevant and that people want to see can be changed.
However, it comes down to the issue of concentrating people’s minds in Committees regarding this and other Bills. The Committee’s role is to scrutinise legislation and to put the time into ensuring that the Committee Stage of each Bill is completed. Everyone will have to put more time into the Committee Stage and into Committee business. We need a quorum in order to do that. Members will have to concentrate their minds on that and, to some extent, their other roles in the Assembly, or outside, will have to be set aside.
I also ask the Business Committee to look again at the whole issue of the distribution of Bills. It is not that the Finance and Personnel Committee wants to send work to other Committees; it is because some Bills coming from the Office of Law Reform are more relevant to other Committees. The present Bill would probably be more relevant to the Health Committee than to the Finance Committee.
We have to be realistic in determining which is the proper Committee to scrutinise a Bill. The Business Committee should do that, and it should ensure that Bills are distributed to appropriate Committees. I ask Members to support the amendment, which is in keeping with the Committee’s decision to bring forward the legislation to 26January2001. In that way the Committee will ensure that it meets the timescale and completes the proper scrutiny of the Bill at the same time. Go raibh maith agat.
Question, 
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(2) be extended to Friday 26January2001 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill [NIA 6/00].

Private Notice Question: Fermanagh Creameries

Mr Gerry McHugh: asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what can be done to avoid the impending closure of Fermanagh Creameries at Lisnaskea, County Fermanagh.

Sir Reg Empey: The recent announcement about the closure of Fermanagh Creameries is very much regretted. However, this is a commercial decision taken by the parent company as part of its planned operational reorganisation.

Mr Gerry McHugh: I thank the Minister for taking time out of his busy schedule to come to the House to answer my question.
This is an urgent local matter and it is important that we try to improve the situation. Does the Minister know whether any other companies have made bids to take over the plant as a going concern? If closure is inevitable, can the Minister look at the provision of advice and help for those facing redundancies, including those who may wish to start up a small business under programmes run by the IDB and LEDU?

Sir Reg Empey: I am not aware of any companies seeking to take over the operation, but I cannot say that negotiations are not going on. The company gave us no advance notice of the decision; it was announced to the press at the same time that it was announced to us.
I am aware of the difficult circumstances in County Fermanagh in the past couple of months. A series of announcements has caused considerable distress there. I will be visiting the county for a number of engagements in the next 10 days, and I shall take the matter up with the local council — officials and councillors — because it has been working closely with the IDB in recent weeks.
I know that the Member, as a supplier to the company, has a personal interest in this regrettable matter. The company took over the plant earlier this year as part of a substantial rationalisation of its dairy business throughout the country. At that stage, people hoped that that would provide a firmer foundation on which the company could establish itself. Members will also be aware that last week the closure was announced of a factory in Dorset that is also part of the group; it is in that context that the decision has been taken. The IDB is trying to come to an agreement with the company about what can be done. Financial assistance was offered to the company in 1992, and only part of that was drawn down.
The Member also asked about the provision of advice and help. A group is already working with the IDB and other agencies in County Fermanagh in the wake of the Desmond & Sons Ltd announcement. The work of that group will be extended to deal with this case.
It is all a matter of deep regret, and I hope to learn more on my visit to the county.

Mrs Joan Carson: I deplore the fact that Fermanagh has lost another industry. The firm has carried out further rationalisation and has made 78 people redundant in the Lisnaskea area. The company’s announcement only compounds the problem in Fermanagh; a total of 700 jobs has been lost in the past two years. Not only have workers lost their jobs, but the already beleaguered farmers in the area must now pay an extra £200 a month in transportation costs because of the closure of the plant. How will they be helped?
Will the Minister ensure that the workforce gets help to find alternative employment and endeavour to draw vital investment to the area to facilitate the creation of sustainable employment for the future?

Sir Reg Empey: I am conscious of the situation affecting the suppliers. As the hon Lady said, they could face increased transportation costs.
I will obviously consult with my hon Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, and the company is meeting with suppliers and employees later today to explain its decision. It has not been possible for us to establish the rationale behind the decision because contact between ourselves and the company has not elicited any response or explanation since the announcement last Thursday. I hope that after the meeting this evening more information will be available. We are acutely aware of the series of announcements in the county which have affected the agriculture sector and have put pressure on the rural community.
With regard to finding alternative employment, I indicated that the group working with the council, the IDB and LEDU will obviously wish to take on the job of trying to assist those employees who will be in difficulties. With regard to the wider situation in the county, the number of people claiming unemployment benefit as of last month shows a continual and significant drop in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency. Unemployment in that area has dropped by 11% in the past 12 months and now stands at 2,294 persons. Clearly that masks the fact that there are pockets of very high unemployment and the loss of 78 jobs in a small rural community is a huge blow by any stretch of the imagination. Not only are the employees directly affected, but, as the hon Member pointed out, the suppliers are affected. The repercussions of this closure go far beyond the 78 people who work in the plant. We will have to take further advice and I will certainly need to talk to my hon Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: All of us share the Minister’s great sense of shock over how suddenly a workforce can be made redundant, quite simply overnight. In this case a workforce that has always had good relations with the management and has excellent workers has just been cast aside in the private interests of some company from well outside the area. I welcome the Minister’s expression of support and his interest in working with the local council and others interested in attracting investment to the area.
We have had an encouraging job announcement from Rye Valley Foods in recent weeks, but a great deal more needs to be done. The quicker we get more investment into the area the better. The town in question is Lisnaskea, in south Fermanagh, where wards with the highest levels of deprivation are found, including Rosslea and Newtownbutler. While any jobs would be welcome in Fermanagh at the moment, we must keep the restoration of employment to Lisnaskea as a priority, given the local circumstances.

Sir Reg Empey: This was a sudden announcement and a shock to all of us. There will be further announcements of this nature because the way in which things happen today means that many companies are not necessarily widely supported by the IDB. This company has had no financial offer because it has made no request for help since 1992, and we therefore have no ongoing arrangement with it.
That does not necessarily mean that things were turned down; it is simply that requests have not been made. That company, like others, made its announcement out of the blue and without consultation. I had a similar experience when the textile sector hit a bad patch at the start of the year.
Indeed, there was one case of an IDB official meeting a company in the morning, and no mention was made of an announcement of significant redundancies that after- noon. Companies do this sort of thing for their own commercial reasons and I wanted to put that on the record. There is sometimes a misunderstanding, an assumption that Government know about it in advance.
There is regular contact with potential client companies on an ongoing basis, but companies frequently do not show their commercial hand. Often even local management does not know if it is a foreign or cross-channel company. We are looking at the broader picture here, and Members will appreciate that as far as this particular group is concerned we are looking at the liquid bulk milk market throughout the UK. That is important.
I fully appreciate that there are good relationships there. In response to the main point of Mr Gallagher’s question about County Fermanagh, I can say that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s agencies, particularly the IDB, are working closely with the council to understand its preferred priorities for local economic development. Following the IDB roadshow in Omagh in September, the IDB’s chief executive and senior officials have met with council representatives and other individuals concerned with local economic development to understand how this work can be taken forward.
The council will respond to the IDB within the next few weeks to discuss the make-up of a representative group of all interested parties. I hope that that will go some way to ensuring that the interests of the county are taken into account in any future inward investment.

Mr Derek Hussey: I too sympathise with the representatives and those people affected in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. In West Tyrone there is also high dependency on this type of agrifood industry. It is not long since we lost one of our outlets with the closure of Killen Creamery. Is the Minister aware of any other threats to the agrifood sector that the House should be aware of? Given the movement toward rural diversification, this sector features highly in the revitalisation of the community.

Sir Reg Empey: I am not aware of any further threat to any particular company, but today I requested an urgent review of the sector to see if that should be the case. As I said earlier, we had no notification whatsoever. Companies are not under any obligation to inform us of redundancies, particularly if they do not have Government programmes in place. Nevertheless, there have been one or two rationalisations in the bulk liquid milk sector in the past few months. In view of what has happened over the past few days, I thought it prudent to trawl through the remaining companies to find out if such a thing might be the case.
I have to stress that there had been talk — and Mr McHugh mentioned this in his supplementary — about whether there are other companies in the field. We must remember that this is commercially sensitive information, and some companies, if they are trying to do business with another company or offload or whatever, would be reluctant to expose any of their plans to Government or anybody else. They will be reluctant to upset their suppliers, or interrupt their supply, by allowing that information to become public. As people know in Northern Ireland, things never lose anything in the telling. It could well be that they could damage themselves commercially.
With that health warning, I can assure the Member that I am positively pursuing this. The relevant client executive in the IDB will be pursuing this particular sector forthwith.
Motion made
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker]

Waste Management (Eastern Area)

Sir John Gorman: Several Members, in addition to the Minister, who will take 10 minutes, wish to take part in this debate. We have to complete our business by six o’clock, so speeches will be limited to five minutes, with the exception of that of Mr Ford, who is raising the subject.

Mr David Ford: My concerns are with the implementation of the waste management strategy across the entire eastern region and not just in my council area of Antrim. I do not propose to discuss the strategy document today. The document is valuable in that it sets out strategy, but it leaves much of the detailed work to the three consortia of councils that now exist in Northern Ireland.
The largest consortium consists of 11 eastern councils bounded by Larne, Ballymena, Antrim, Lisburn and Down, which contain over half the population of Northern Ireland and a large share of the region’s waste management problems. Many of these councils are already under severe stress and the specific causes are the limited facilities that exist for waste disposal in the eastern region.
In the summer of 2000 the Eastern Region Waste Management Group prepared a paper on the essential interim capacity, and it showed that there is scarcely one year’s capacity left in the region, even allowing for one large site at Dargan Road in Belfast, over which there had been some doubts. The situation must cause problems to council officers and councillors trying to put together a long-term strategy for their districts. There is some spare capacity, for example, in Down district at Drumanakelly. I find it difficult to see that any capacity in Down would be of much use to Antrim, Ballymena or any other council at the northern end of the region.
Several councils, including Antrim, Newtownabbey, Carrickfergus, Larne, North Down and Ards, depend on one site — UK Waste, now known as Biffa Waste Services Ltd — at Green Road in Ballyclare. The paper prepared by the Eastern Region Waste Management Group shows how this works: Antrim Council, short-term contract in Ballyclare; Ards Council, short-term contract in Ballyclare; Ballymena Council, its own site at Ballymacvea, with one year’s capacity in a somewhat prehistoric site, I say cautiously; Belfast City Council, its own site at Dargan Road; Carrickfergus Council, dependent on UK Waste at Ballyclare on a short-term contract; Castlereagh Council, a site at Ballygowan with one year’s capacity; Down, thanks to Drumanakelly, has 28 years’ capacity; Larne, dependent on UK Waste at Ballyclare; Lisburn, two years’ capacity at a site at Drumlough; Newtownabbey, dependent on Green Road in Ballyclare and a short-term contract, although this will last for a matter of years rather than months; North Down Council also has a short-term site in Ballyclare. This shows the difficulties that exist when so many councils are dependent on one site.
How can it be the best environmental option? Surely councils are obliged to find the best practicable environmental option available. It cannot be best value for waste to be taken long distances or to have a local monopoly, because that is effectively what UK Waste now has across the eastern region. Even if there were spare capacity at Dargan Road or in the Down district, these groups have no legal status. Councils have to make their own decisions on what is best because that is their legal obligation. I quote from a paper sent to the Department of the Environment in October from the eastern region:
"Technically individual councils may be capable of moving waste; however, sharing of capacity within the group has not been discussed at a political level and this issue does not form part of the current remit of the eastern region group."
In other words, it may be a fine thing to say on paper in the Department that there is major spare capacity in the eastern region, but we have to consider the political options. We have to consider moving waste, and the costs involved. Early this year I asked the director of finance in Antrim Council for the cost of using a site in Ballyclare rather than the site of our own that we had hoped to have. I was told it was approximately £120,000 per year. Antrim is a medium-sized council — approximately the same size as Down, Omagh or Coleraine. It meant a charge of 2p on the rates for the extra cost of disposing at a site that we do not wish to use. That is not the council’s fault.
There is a long-running saga about the options that Antrim Council has attempted to secure. Before I was elected to the council in May 1993 the search for the next waste site — which would be required by 1998 — was already under way. A site was quickly identified at Ladyhill, near Antrim town, a planning application was submitted in 1995, and a public inquiry was held in 1997. I understand the inspector’s report was finalised in 1998, but we are stuck because of the waste management strategy. There has still been no determination on that application, and Antrim Council continues to pay the extra costs of waste disposal because there has been no decision from the Department of the Environment planners. Again, that decision was planned well in advance by the council. That is the situation that Antrim Council has been in.
As my council Colleague who is in the Chamber could doubtless confirm, Antrim has been proactive on waste issues for many years. It was the first council to have borough-wide kerbside collection of recyclables, and the first with a fully engineered landfill site. That site has just been closed because a second proper site is being sought. We are not in the position of some councils which are still dependent on old sites that they have not been running to the highest standards. Our officers lead the eastern group, and have made a major contribution to the Department’s advisory group on the strategy. Antrim Council is not jumping at the last minute; it has done all it could to plan in advance and yet has been let down. The result is that the ratepayers are suffering the expense of 2p on the rates simply for the additional costs of moving waste from Antrim to Ballyclare.
If that is a problem, I cannot imagine what it is costing Strabane Council. I understand that that council is also transporting waste to Ballyclare because the situation in the western region is so bad. Where is the sense in that?
The three groups have been working on detailed strategies for their own areas. Plans were supposed to be prepared for next June, but it is quite clear that in the eastern region that will not happen. Apart from anything else, there is a requirement under best practice to have proper public consultation on such matters. It would be easy to take a decision and announce it next month, but it would not be the best decision, and it would not have followed proper consultation. We therefore do not expect that the plans in the eastern region will be finalised until next November — a full year from now.
That leads to two problems. I have already highlighted the fact that the spare capacity of a little over a year may well run out by the time the plan is prepared, and that is going to create major problems. There is a further problem, for which we must thank the Minister, who created it. He announced funding of £3·5 million to offset waste disposal costs next year, in particular to implement the waste management plans that follow through from the strategy. It is not entirely clear to me what that money can be spent on.
Unfortunately, if the plans are not finalised until late in the next calendar year, that only leaves two or three months of the next financial year in which any of that money could be spent. I thank the Minister for having found the money, but it would be rather sad if we were unable to spend it because the plans are not advanced. It is vital that action be taken soon to avoid major problems in Antrim and other council areas.
Were I slightly more naive, I would perhaps suggest that the Department might consider granting planning permission for some of the necessary sites. That might prejudice any concept of a strategy. As one of the MLAs representing the Mallusk area, I say to the Minister — as he would expect me to — that I would be concerned if permission were given to expand Cottonmount at a time when the strategy is not in place, particularly given the controversy surrounding that application and the problems that it will create for my constituents.
On the other hand, I am sure that I could establish a case for Ladyhill as being the best practicable environmental option for Antrim. The Minister might well disagree and I would not wish to push that point.
In a letter to Antrim Borough Council last month the Minister acknowledged that there were options open to the council in the interim, but that they would cost money. I trust the Minister has already had the letter that was sent back to him on 14 November by the mayor. I quote it for the benefit of other Members:
"The council remains extremely concerned at the position in which it now finds itself, despite its best efforts to secure a cost-effective disposal route. … I am aware that the Environment and Heritage Service has recently carried out an analysis of Essential Interim Capacity. Arising from this, it is my understanding that they have concluded that there is an urgent need in the Eastern Region. I would therefore seek clarification as to the conclusions drawn that options are available, and how the costs of any such options, if any, can be mitigated through DOE support before interim capacity comes fully on stream."
I would like to return to the Minister’s £3·5 million —

Sir John Gorman: The Member is running out of time.

Mr David Ford: I am sorry, but I did not hear you put any time limit on me.

Sir John Gorman: I think I did in my introductory remarks. We need to move on because more Members wish to speak. How much time do you need to finish?

Mr David Ford: I have three quick questions to ask the Minister. First, will the Minister allow councils to spend the allocation to meet the short-term needs, while the regional plans are put in place and current applications are decided? Secondly, what was the outcome of the essential interim capacity study and what conclusions has he reached in relation to that? Thirdly, what options are available to councils such as Antrim in the next 12 months and in the year or two after that?

Mr Duncan Dalton: As one of the representatives of South Antrim, one of the major concerns in the constituency has been the site at Mallusk. This discussion is about the entire waste management strategy in the eastern region. In my view, the Department needs to make a decision at an early stage in relation to the Mallusk site. Having made that decision, it will then be possible to use it to formulate an overall strategy to deal with the eastern region.
One of the developing problems is that the absence of decisions on individual sites is undermining the Department’s ability to make a strategic decision in relation to the entire eastern region. How can a strategy be developed when individual planning applications are not being dealt with? If the Mallusk site is to go ahead, that will have a major impact on the development of an overall strategy in the region. If it is refused, that again will impact on the overall strategy. I would press the Minister to make a decision on the Mallusk site as soon as possible, and in so doing enable a better strategy to be developed.
With regard to an overall strategy on waste management, as a society we need to develop a better system to deal with our waste. In the long term, it is not acceptable to use landfill as a method of dealing with waste. It is ineffective and causes enormous environmental hazards in the area. There are few sites which are available for use as landfill in a proper way.
One has to acknowledge that companies such as UK Waste are leaders in their field; they have developed extensive technology to deal with landfill and they do the best job possible for landfill sites. Nevertheless, difficulties arise because landfill is inherently difficult to manage and is an environmentally destructive method of waste management.
I say to the Department and to society that we need to develop a better overall strategy in dealing with waste management. That means looking at recycling options and energy from waste. Belgium has an extensive waste- to-energy facility and has made provision for such facilities. That country manages to convert an enormous amount of its domestic and industrial waste into useful energy. That is something that we could be doing.
There is no reason why, on the island of Ireland, it is not possible to construct waste-to-energy sites which could convert waste on an all-island basis and make positive use of that, producing a form of energy that could be fed back into the energy system. It is foolish that we simply continue to look at our strategy as being how to dig the biggest holes, fill them up with waste, and try to manage them as best we can. That is not an option that has any long-term sustainability. It is vital that we have a sustainable strategy for waste management which involves — and I acknowledge that this is in the Department’s strategy — inverting that triangle so that in future landfill will be the last resort for waste, and it will be a minority of waste that will be dealt with by landfill.
My Colleague Mr Ford has made some valid points in regard to the landfill site at Ladyhill in Antrim. I am aware of residents’ concerns, but that area is probably less residential than the Mallusk site. Consequently, the landfill does not have the same impact on residents as the Mallusk site, which is essentially situated within a developing residential and industrial complex. There are probably some valid arguments that could be made in relation to Ladyhill, but I am sure that I will get telephone calls to the contrary very shortly. That probably covers what I wanted to say initially.

Sir John Gorman: You do not have to use the five minutes.

Mr Duncan Dalton: No. However, one will rarely get a barrister who cannot fill five minutes.
I come back to the question of overall strategy in the eastern region. Development of waste management control in the eastern region is something that has to be looked at from a global perspective. Individual sites cannot simply be looked at, and decisions made on them on them, and then the overall strategy development in the eastern region dealt with.
It is important that a strategy be phased into the eastern region and subsequently replicated across all of Northern Ireland. That means developing a strategy for waste management which involves adjusting how waste is dealt with. In particular, new methods of waste control must be developed, moving away from landfill and increasing the use of recycling.
Increasing home composting is an example. A large quantity of domestic waste goes into landfill. The presence of foodstuffs in domestic waste causes a major biological hazard in the form of gas and leachate development. This can be dealt with more effectively by home composting schemes, where foodstuffs can be broken down in the back garden and can then be used more beneficially. Landfill sites can be restricted to domestic waste, which does not have the same impact.

Sir John Gorman: Mr Doherty, you do not need to take your full five minutes.

Mr Arthur Doherty: To my embarrassment, I may take less than five minutes.
I was intrigued by the title chosen for this debate. I presumed rightly that when Mr Ford used the term "eastern region" he was not referring to the Far East, the Middle East or the Near East, nor even the east coast of our offshore island, Great Britain, but to our eastern region — the region east of the Bann, with all the blessings which accrue to that favoured location. Quite clearly, from what Mr Ford says, all is not manna from heaven in our eastern Eden. I begin like this not to display my knowledge of geography, nor my ability to decipher an adjournment motion, but to make a very serious point — one already touched on by MrShipley Dalton.
Each region of Northern Ireland, as well as each other region of any sort or size throughout the world, may have its particular special problems with regard to waste management. However, the issue of waste management is not a local problem. It is not a national problem. It is an international problem. It is a global problem. Much can be done locally, by way of education, to change attitudes and practices. Some things can be done locally to develop new and better systems of minimising, reusing and recycling waste and of creating markets for recycled materials. Local improvements can be made in methods of, and practices in, waste disposal, but most of the problems — both technical and economic — are too big to be dealt with on a purely local or parochial basis. We are too small to go it alone. As I have said many times before, we must think big — nationally and internationally — if we are to achieve our aims in waste management.
It is important to consult and co-operate with our neighbours, here and abroad. It is particularly important to consult and co-operate with the local authorities, the Government, and other interested parties in the Republic, in the development of practical and achievable waste management strategies. These strategies will serve the needs and interests of all, and will assure a better quality of life for all on this island.
I take account of the issues raised by Mr Ford, and I appreciate the particular conditions prevailing in the south Antrim area. I know that Mr Ford appreciates my points, and I hope they register with every Member.

Mr Jim Shannon: This debate is an opportunity to discuss issues that may be of low priority but are important for us as elected representatives. The need to promote waste management is the issue of the future, especially in our area where it has to be considered and a strategy developed. The Government have introduced the concept of producer responsibility, thereby ensuring that producers take a life-cycle view of their products and encourage the three Rs — reuse, recovery and recycling. The need to find alternatives to landfill arises for a number of reasons and because of a number of pressures. We are all aware of the importance of the environment — hence the trend to increase taxes to achieve environmental goals, and a landfill Directive which sets stage targets for diversion, bans certain waste and requires pretreatment of others.
We also have national and international commitments, with regulations coming from the UK, Europe and further afield. We are encountering growing public expectations from the green lobby and others who are not entirely green-minded, but who see the importance of these issues. We have the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which requires councils to develop a waste management plan, and that is why the eastern region has come together.
The waste management strategy for Northern Ireland sets out substantially to divert waste management away from landfill solutions. It presumes that individually Northern Ireland councils are too small to plan strategically. That is correct. Individually the councils cannot provide all the environmentally acceptable solutions economically, but collectively they can. Therefore, the solution is to bring the councils together to achieve cross-council co-operation. It is necessary to amass a sufficient volume of waste to make environmental treatment economical.
The Eastern Region Waste Management Group has 25% of Northern Ireland’s landmass, 54% of the population and 55% of the waste produced. Again, this clearly illustrates the issues. And while 550,000 tonnes of waste were produced in 1999-2000, that figure is predicted to rise to 950,000 tonnes by 2019-20. That is the term we are looking at, and that helps us appreciate all that we have to do and our responsibility.
The Government have set targets for recovery and recycling. By 2005 they want 25% of household waste — 145,000 tonnes — recovered, 15% through recycling. By 2010 they want 40% of household waste recovered, 25% by recycling and composting, and that amounts to 267,000 tonnes.
Those targets are difficult, and they represent a challenge for all those in the eastern region. They may be unattainable, but they are the goals set down by the Government, and they will not be achieved without significant investment. That investment will involve collection methods, separation at central points, the development of markets and the purchase of processing plant and equipment. I will not go over all the issues about waste itself, but as each year goes by the number of households will increase, with an anticipated 100,000 new households in the eastern region between now and 2020.
The first technology anticipated to achieve the targets and attain the strategy is recycling, and almost every council is directly involved. Some are further ahead than others, but nonetheless they realise its importance.
Incineration is perhaps the most important method of anaerobic digestion. That works by getting rid of the waste and generating electricity. Gasification is another method of making energy for nearby households. It looks increasingly as though incineration will be the chosen method. It is certain that disposal costs will increase, although it is too early at this stage to quantify the increases. This depends on the chosen technologies and the success of the recycling and recovery markets. It is vital that unit costs be equalised in the eastern region and that an assurance be given that no authority — I ask the Minister to take this on board — will be penalised due to geographic or infrastructural constraints.

Sir John Gorman: The Member should draw his remarks to a close, please.

Mr Jim Shannon: One-stop point-of-deposit and transfer stations need to be uniform across the region. I seek that reassurance from the Minister.

Mr Norman Boyd: I wish to speak about the effects of waste management in my constituency of South Antrim. The Department of the Environment’s Waste Management Strategy in 1999 stated:
"The vision for this strategy is of Northern Ireland as a European centre of excellence in resource and waste management."
These are noble words. However, that is all that they are at present. The reality is very different. The Minister responsible for the issue at the time, George Howarth, stated that the Government were committed to playing a leading role.
I must challenge the Department of the Environment on several issues, in particular the current position regarding landfill sites in the South Antrim constituency. One of the first major debates in the House in 1998 was about the horrendous problems facing residents in Mallusk Road, Newtownabbey regarding the UK Waste Management Ltd landfill site. Over two years later the residents of that area are still living with the uncertainty regarding the phase two application for this site, despite the total opposition of every Assembly Member in the constituency to it.
In 1995 it was revealed that UK Waste Management Ltd had leased the Cottonmount quarry and intended to take waste from Belfast to Mallusk until 2000. It was also revealed that it had applied for planning permission for the remainder of the quarry complex, which would extend dumping by 20 years. UK Waste Management Ltd stated that, within six months of starting operations, the residents would not be aware that the company was there. Dumping began at the end of February 1996, and the impact was felt immediately. The fears of the residents who had opposed the planning application were realised — the smell, the birds and the litter, both wind-blown and that falling off lorries. Roads and footpaths became hazardous because of the dirt, and the volume and speed of traffic. Meetings were held between the residents and UK Waste Management Ltd, but the problems were not resolved.
The situation deteriorated. Public meetings were held and attended by over 300 residents each time. Their plight was heard in detail and numerous public health issues were raised. Many residents are unable to enjoy time in their garden because of the strong smell which makes some of them ill. Problems for asthma sufferers are increasing due to the poor air quality, but they are unable to open any windows. Sunday appears to be the day when the smell is worst. Large numbers of birds generate a huge amount of droppings in the area and on nearby farmland. The rockets used to deter the birds are very loud and frighten pets. There is increased litter on the Bernice Road and surrounding areas, and there is an unacceptable volume of traffic, resulting in increased congestion, speeding and dirt.
There have been several instances of mice and rat infestations in the residential area, and there are many flies. As a result, people cannot open their windows. Food has to be covered while being eaten. For example, 60 bluebottles were found in one kitchen in one week. Such cases are not isolated and are clearly unacceptable. The problem was exacerbated by a High Court judgement issuing an order compelling the Department of the Environment to provide planning permission for the second phase of the landfill development operated by UK Waste Management Ltd. This ruling could enable waste from Belfast and surrounding areas to be taken to Cottonmount for the next 25 years.
In 1997 the residents wrote to the Planning Service to object to phase two as so many problems were still unresolved in relation to phase one. The Planning Service’s opinion failed to take account of EC legislation requiring areas of separation between landfills and residential and recreational areas. The Planning Service’s opinion also gave a competitive advantage to UK Waste Management Ltd by placing 50% of all waste management in Northern Ireland in one company.
In February 1998 Newtownabbey Borough Council commissioned an independent survey of odour problems in the area of Baird’s Brae landfill site at Mallusk Road, Newtownabbey. The report stated that the site is situated in an area of mixed development with light industrial, commercial and extensive residential developments all located within 200 metres of the site boundary.
A summary of the report states that offensive odour levels were encountered at Baird’s Brae on all four site visits, mainly as a result of operational practice. That was principally the combination of a large active area and landfill gas venting into the atmosphere. Waste management practice in Northern Ireland lags behind that of some other parts of Europe. The Government are obliged to ensure that waste management develops closely in line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom and in accordance with European Directives.
One of those objectives is to reduce the volume of municipal waste considerably. Phase two at Mallusk would therefore directly contravene EU Directives. It is clear that alternatives to landfill in Northern Ireland must be implemented, including the reuse of waste and increased recycling. There must be no further development of landfill sites at Mallusk or Ballyclare, and I also oppose the Ladyhill site in Antrim. The constituents of South Antrim should not have to put up —

Sir John Gorman: The Member is coming to the end of his five minutes.

Mr Norman Boyd: The constituents of South Antrim should not have to put up with having the waste of other constituencies on their doorstep.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I shall be exceptionally brief, for I believe it is important that we leave as much time as possible for the Minister to respond to the important questions asked.
There is a crisis in the waste management strategy in the east of the Province. "Crisis" is a word often overused in politics, but in this case it is very appropriate. I understand from experts that in total around seven to eight years’ worth of landfill sites is available for the people of Northern Ireland. However, that does not take account of the highly localised nature of the problem. Antrim has less than one year remaining, and the cost to the borough’s ratepayers of taking waste from the Antrim area to other landfill sites is tremendous — I believe that Mr Ford gave us the figure of 2p in the pound per annum.
I do not believe for one moment that all the blame lies with the present Minister. Part of this problem stems from direct rule and over 20 years of Ministers’ refusing to make decisions on a proper waste management strategy, putting the issue onto the back burner. Several Members earlier referred to two possibilities. Mr Ford spoke at some length about incinerating waste. The reality is that, if the present Minister made such a decision, by the time the location of a plant had been chosen, given the probable need for a public inquiry, we would still be faced with a very serious waste management problem.
Mr Shipley Dalton referred to recycling. While we all laud the possibility, the difficulty in changing the mindset of Northern Ireland people to encourage recycling means that we would make few inroads into the problem. I would like to ask the Minister a few specific questions. I do not believe that his essential interim capacity report took into full account third-party waste and the engineering material used at landfill sites, which probably accounts for 20% of the total waste. Is the Minister aware of the problem? What decisions have arisen from that study, and what options will he make available to the ratepayers of the Antrim area? Will the Department of the Environment mitigate the cost to Antrim Borough Council of using any of the alternative options?

Sir John Gorman: I call Dr William McCrea. Perhaps, since he was not present earlier, I should say that the limit is five minutes. If he could make it shorter, we would be most grateful.

Rev William McCrea: There is certainly a big problem with waste management, both throughout the Province and, in particular, in the area mentioned by Mr McClelland. Not only one problem — that of Antrim — has been identified in the area; there are also problems at Green Road in Ballyclare, and at Cottonmount. The Minister is certainly aware of all those issues.
Local residents have asked a number of questions concerning Ladyhill, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty. Many of those questions which were posed to the Minister by the Environment Committee require a response from the Department, which is considering them at present. Issues such as roads and siting impinge on the local community, and must be responded to in a positive way.
On phase two in Cottonmount, the Department could take one of two roads: it could hold a public inquiry or refuse the planning request. The best route for the Department is to refuse this and those who feel aggrieved can lodge an appeal. Is the Minister mindful of the concerns of the Mallusk community, and is he prepared to refuse this application? If an appeal is lodged, the full implications can be discussed.
There are many problems with the Green Road area of Ballyclare. The responsibilities of both the Department and Newtownabbey Borough Council have been clearly identified, as I have already told the Minister and his officials. The Minister’s officials tell me one aspect of the problem, while the council gives me a different picture. There appears to be a great divergence of views on the solution to the matter. I have requested that both sides meet, rather than my meeting the bodies separately and diplomatically, only to find that the two views are not complementary — sometimes the members of one body are not even complimentary about the other. Rather than running around like a dog chasing its tail, the best way to process this application in the interests of the local community is to hold a proper meeting. The concerns could be clearly ironed out and an independent view taken of all actions to date.
We have to deal with waste management in a sensible and sensitive way. Incineration and recycling must be considered and the community must be educated on these matters. Members of the Environment Committee are concerned that the Department, as well as local government, should be actively engaged in this, rather than waiting for the other to take the lead. The Department must get together with the councils to see how we can process this in the best interests of the public.
This issue is worthy of an Adjournment debate, but we will hear a good deal more on the subject. Finances will have to be provided to enable councils to do an excellent job in waste management for the future. This situation, with all its problems, has evolved over the years. It can be taken forward in a sensitive way with the necessary finance made available. I support the introduction of the issue, and I trust that the Minister will have something helpful to say to the House.

Mr Roy Beggs: Figures recently published in a written answer show that there are some very low levels of recycling in some district council areas in Northern Ireland, and it is obvious that improvements must be made. Recycling has not had enough focus and priority to date. Waste management and minimisation must commence right, however, and there must be a focus on reducing, through improved packaging and minimisation, the amount of waste that is produced in the first place.
What happens to all the paper that is gathered up in the paper banks? On some occasions even this might go to a landfill waste site. Obviously, there is a need to act collectively in regional areas and to devise ways of dealing with waste efficiently. I support the concept of ensuring that bigger quantities of recycled goods are gathered together and are moved and recycled more efficiently. There is a great deal of waste recycling in England, but with that come large transportation costs, which affect the industry’s economy. It should be the responsibility of Departments to consider how a system of paper recycling might operate.
There is now a large bottle manufacturing plant in Fermanagh. I hope that all bottles that are gathered in the bottle banks are not dumped in a landfill site — I know that that has happened on occasions.
The IDB should tie the whole thing together, in that companies which attract grants should receive them only if they provide a service to the community and pay heed to the environmental benefits of recycling products in a particular region.
Landfill should be the last option. In an ideal world, there would be no landfill, but we do not live in an ideal world. We want our waste to be collected regularly, so there have to be landfill sites in which to dispose of it. The landfill tax levy provides a financial incentive to minimise this — and it is being increased progressively — but we are out of line with some of our European counterparts. There may be a case for increasing this tax in order to benefit the environment.
No one likes to talk about raising taxes, but it may be necessary to do so. Of course, that is a reserved matter. The money could subsequently be spent on recycling, thereby bringing benefit to the community and to the environment.
South Antrim Members have highlighted the difficulties caused by the existing waste landfill sites. Where do they want the waste processed? I hope that they have not got their eyes on some neighbouring constituencies. I would like to hear where they want their waste to be recycled. All they do is knock all three landfill sites. I am not advocating them, but if one complains about them, one has to suggest an alternative.

Mr David Ford: I hope the Member was listening to me.

Mr Roy Beggs: I will listen later on. I hope that people have not set their sights on my constituency. There was a proposal to develop one of the largest landfill sites in Europe in my constituency, and I would like to highlight some of the reasons why it was not successful. First, Larne Lough is a protected environment. There are shellfish in the lough, and according to EU Directives, the water purity must be protected. Secondly, there are roseate tern there.

Sir John Gorman: Can the Member please bring his remarks to a close.

Mr Roy Beggs: The roseate tern is an endangered species, and it must be protected. The watercourse must also be protected, and there are additional serious environmental concerns which must be addressed at other locations that some of the South Antrim Members may have set their sights on. I hope they are not suggesting that this location should be used as the landfill site for the entire eastern region.

Mr David Hilditch: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important subject. The issues surrounding waste management have an enormous impact on everything that today’s society values. This Assembly, the Minister and the Department need to address these issues sooner rather than later.
It will require radical and innovative thinking. It will mean breaking the mould, because to continue with the easy option of dumping waste into the ground will have serious consequences for future generations.
In 1988 the figure for household waste was 704,400 tonnes. Ten years later that figure had risen to 867,500 tonnes, an increase of 163,100 tonnes. That represents an average growth rate of 1·91% per annum for the Province. Therefore, it is safe to assume that domestic waste will continue to increase and that the cost of landfill will rise accordingly. Landfill sites will continue to disappear, and because of environmental issues new sites will be virtually unobtainable.
Like Mr Beggs, I want to flag up the issue with Mr Ford and advise him not to look towards Larne Lough and the Magheramorne site. I know he mentioned various sites in South Antrim, but there is also opposition to Magheramorne.

Mr David Ford: I said that I opposed the Mallusk site because of the major problems around Cottonmount. Unlike some of your Colleagues, I did not oppose the Ladyhill site. I have supported that site in the council, as has Mr McClelland.

Rev William McCrea: Shame on you.

Mr David Hilditch: As of April2000, my local authority, Carrickfergus Borough Council, is paying a landfill tax of £11pertonne, plus a disposable cost of £33 per tonne — a total disposal cost of £44, not to mention the costs involved in collection and transportation. That is an enormous burden on local authorities and, ultimately, the ratepayer.
The limited amount of landfill capacity currently available allows companies to hold local authorities to ransom. Again, to use the example of my own council, our waste disposal contract expires on 31March2001, and we have been unable to sign a new contract. One can only assume that local authorities are being played against one other for the companies’ benefit.
This is a major problem. If the Assembly misses the opportunity to address the issues of waste management, the consequences for future generations could be catastrophic. We have to be imaginative about waste disposal. We must find ways to recycle at affordable prices and we have to find ways to protect our environment and natural resources. We need to turn our throwaway society round. Everyone has his or her part to play.
Central Government can help to provide the facilities to process material collected for recycling — such as glass, cans and plastic — because there are a limited number of outlets in Northern Ireland. The Assembly can play a key role in helping local authorities form waste management partnerships and develop joint waste management plans. Industry can create more resource-efficient products and services. The public can segregate waste for recycling at home, work and at school. Everyone must play his or her part in this crucial issue. In the words of Mr George Howarth MP,
"If we are to make real progress towards a better use of resources and reducing waste, we must rethink our current habits."
We talk about sustainable development. Without a radical overhaul of our waste management strategy and a genuine and sincere approach to recycling, our economy will suffer. How can we attract new industry if we cannot dispose of our additional waste? How can our industry become more competitive in a global market if the cost of waste disposal is spiralling? The Assembly, together with central Government, local authorities and the general public must tackle the issue of waste management urgently.

Mr Sam Foster: I welcome the teasing out of this important issue. I have listened to the debate with interest and have noted the difficulties raised. Moreover, I believe that everyone in the Assembly will appreciate, as I do, the gravity of these matters.
I have inherited a problem which I want to solve quickly. However, the implications for the environment and the economy of introducing a new waste management strategy should not be underestimated, nor should the serious impact that a wrong development decision could have on the daily life of a community. Many communities, on the basis of experience, hold out the hope that landfill will no longer be necessary. In contrast, others are seeking more space because of their current dependency on this form of disposal.
Landfill dependency in Northern Ireland — currently at a level of 95% — frequently relies on the tolerance of the host community. That is mainly because of the reluctance of waste producers to commit to changing their practices or to pay for a higher-quality waste management solution, a quality of facility that any community would welcome rather than resist.
Two weeks ago we had an informed debate about zero waste. The concept had universal appeal because it presented a picture of Northern Ireland achieving a level of waste reduction, reuse and recycling that meant that none was left to dispose of. That hierarchy is recognisable — it is the same hierarchy of preferred options described in the waste management strategy.
The strategy was agreed by an independent advisory group and by the Environment Committee, and supported by almost all stakeholders. Why is there such a level of agreement? It is because the measures for change not only meet EU Directive requirements but also make sense for the protection of our economy and our environment. These sensible measures are tough on landfill, and they need to be so if we are to ensure a sustainable future.
I emphasise that every one of us must rise to the very real challenge of changing practices and attitudes toward waste in Northern Ireland. However, the role of district councils is pivotal. District councils are responsible for preparing waste management plans and identifying their current needs. Their analysis is critical in both minimising costs and resisting short-term price pressures. Reacting to recent premium pricing of landfill space could risk predetermination of their plans and affect future markets.
I will refer to a couple of points that were made earlier. Although I cannot answer all today’s questions definitively, I will try to arrange answers to a few of them. In answer to Mr Ford, the waste management strategy sets down a clear timetable for the production of plans by district councils by June 2001. I understand that the other groups of councils are aiming to meet that timetable and to identify any interim needs and examine how the available support funds can best be used. The financial allocation in the draft Department of Environment budget is intended to be spent in a strategic way in support of the waste management plans prepared by the councils.
I say to Mr McClelland that the essential interim capacity study did take account of third-party waste from commerce and industry. In the area of concern, I understand that there are over 70 licensed sites for this type of waste. Nonetheless, there is a need for capacity for municipal waste, which I am considering urgently.
Appeals for two landfills operating in the Newtownabbey area were completed by the site operator in September this year. Those formal applications follow delays by both the appellant and the council in supplying the necessary information. The Green Road appeal is being heard tomorrow. Legal advice on the appropriateness of hearing an appeal on Cottonmount is imminent.
In the summer I directed my officials to expedite an analysis of the complex social, environmental and economic issues that surround the outstanding planning applications. In particular, I told them to involve district councils in the determination of their essential interim capacity needs — that is, the level of additional landfill that they consider they will require before they complete their waste management plans. This vital information has been slow in coming, thus indicating both the complexity of the assessment and the sensitivity surrounding almost all the outstanding applications.
I fully recognise the urgency of the situation. That is why I instructed my officials to press district councils for definitive information on their needs. That is also why my Department continues to provide them with financial and professional support to prepare their waste management plans by June 2001. Those plans will map out the future infrastructure and, through public consultation, the choice of facilities and level of community participation will be agreed.
Community involvement is essential to achieve the aims of the strategy. I want to emphasise that as a further reason why I am giving the most serious consideration to the representations that I have received in respect of the outstanding planning applications.
We have to make choices which are correct for the long term, because the decisions made now will make a difference for three generations. Landfill sites operate for 25years, and their aftercare may last for another 50years. Therefore, it is a fitting precaution to take time now to ensure that we are making the right decision.
I must satisfy the requirements and constraints of a detailed planning process. I appreciate the pressures that some councils face, and I will continue to take into account the weight of public representations made to my officials and me. I continue to attach the greatest importance to the decisions I have to make. In acknowledging the weight I attach to these obligations, I have instructed my officials to bring these matters to an urgent conclusion. They were unable to do that until they received critical data from district councils earlier this month.
I assure Members that I have insisted, because I want to make the correct decision, that all necessary information be gathered and fully considered before decisions are taken which are of such importance to so many people. I must make them on a strategic basis, rather than piecemeal. The most important concern is that the right decision be made. That is my intention, my responsibility and my assurance to the House.
Adjourned at 5.57 pm.